2018_03_30_MAIA_DRFP_Comments_and_Responses.pdf

Contract/SOW Reference

Industry Question/Comment Government Response

Exhibit A, SOW, Section 1.2, Definitions

Please confirm that, when used in the DRFP, “instrument” is synonymous with “payload.” Therefore, mass and power requirements are for the entire payload, not just the optical instruments.

Yes, the terms "payload" and "instrument" are synonymous. Reference the definition of "MAIA Instrument" in Exhibit A, SOW, Section 1.2, Definitions.

Exhibit C, MRD, Section 2.5.5;

Attachment 3.4, ICD, Section 3.11.4.2

Does the payload store all collected mission science data in its own memory or must the spacecraft bus store it? (Paragraph 2.5.5. of the DRFP MRD specifies that the Spacecraft request, receive, and store data from the instrument, but does not indicate whether or not that is only during downlink. Paragraph 3.11.4.2 of the ICD can be interpreted to mean either that the instrument collects imagery data when commanded, or that the instrument stores and forwards previously collected data when commanded.)

The payload (instrument) has the ability to store some science data until it is transferred to the spacecraft. Details will be provided in the final RFP documentation.

Unlike science data, housekeeping data is directly transmitted to the spacecraft to satisfy real time contact requirements during telecom passes.

Exhibit C, MRD;

Attachment 3.4, ICD

Please confirm whether or not the instrument must always scan with the velocity vector in the +X direction. That is, can it scan with the velocity vector in the –X direction.

The MAIA Instrument can operate with the spacecraft velocity vector either in the +X or ‐X direction. The scan axis can accommodate either option. However, the direction of travel must be specified pre‐launch and cannot be changed during the mission.

4 N/A Is the host spacecraft required to have a design life of at least 6 years, to be available for the baseline mission duration plus all options?

Offerors shall ensure any proposed approach to meeting the Government's requirements cover the base and all potential option periods.

Exhibit C, MRD, Section 2.5.3, L2‐ H51

Is the survival power (50W) for when the instrument is neither calibrating nor operating?

Yes, the survival power is for when the instrument is neither calibrating nor operating.

Yes. Survival Power is used when temperatures in the MAIA Instrument go below thermostat set points. This may happen when the MAIA Instrument is turned off or during anomalous environmental conditions.

Exhibit C, MRD, Section 2.5.3, L2‐ H14

Is the 100W of peak power for simultaneous operation of the calibration mode and the operating mode?

No. The peak power condition is during observing mode with both the scan and pan gimbals operating.

7 N/A What is the development schedule and current maturity level of the instrument hardware?

The MAIA Instrument is currently scheduled to have a Preliminary Design Review (PDR) in April 2018 and Critical Design Review (CDR) in February 2019 ‐September 2018.

Note that the MAIA Instrument schedule is always subject to change.

Exhibit C, MRD, Section 2.5

Please confirm that the instrument gimbals handle all pointing, i.e.

the host just has to maintain +Z nadir and control pitch and yaw as specified in the MRD and the gimbals will do the rest of in‐track and/or cross track pointing.

Correct. The instrument gimbals handle all necessary pointing beyond what is required of the spacecraft in Exhibit C, MRD Section 2.5.

Exhibit C, MRD, Section 2.5, L2‐ H6, L2‐H45, L2‐ H7, L2‐H54, and L2‐H8

What are pointing (control and knowledge) requirements for the sun‐calibration on the OBC over the pole?

The pointing control and knowledge required of the spacecraft during sun‐calibration are the same as what is required during observation modes as described in Exhibit C, MRD section 2.5, L2‐H6, L2‐H45, L2‐H7, L2‐H54, and L2‐H8.

Exhibit C, MRD, Section 2.5.3, ID L2‐H13;

Attachment 3.4, ICD, Section 3.3, L3‐EICD4

ICD 3.3 states that MAIA OAP is 60 W, other place it states 85 W (MEV); please clarify OAP.

The value from the MRD, 85 W orbital average power, should be used. The ICD value will be updated for the Final RFP to reflect this 85 W.

Clause 2.16, Milestone Payments;

Exhibit D, Milestone Payment Schedule

In the event of a launch failure or on‐orbit anomaly, will the contractor be required to relinquish any milestone payments that have already been made?

All milestone payments made by the Government are final. However, nonperformance by the Contractor could affect all future milestone payments not already paid.

DRFP Section 1.2, Services to Be Furnished

Will the Government consider utilizing a performance incentive strategy as part of the FFP?

The Government does not intend to revise the contract type structure (i.e., Firm‐Fixed‐Price with Milestone Payments).

Questions/Comments and Government Responses Part II ‐ Draft RFP

80LARC18R0004

Multi‐Angle Imager for Aerosols (MAIA) Hosting Services

Industry Questions/Comments and Government Response (Updates to previous responses shown in red text.)

Questions/Comments and Government Responses Part I ‐ Draft RFP

MAIA Hosting Services Draft RFP Questions and Answers

DRFP Section 1.3, Periods of Performance

(a) Has the government considered additional options beyond CLINs 1,2,3,and 4, for example, possible life extension?

(b) We recommend the Government specifies a time required for In‐ Orbit instrument checkout and allows the contractor to propose the total length of the In‐Orbit Checkout period in their proposal.

(c) Please provide a planning date for the MAIA Instrument CDR. In order to plan and cost the program, planning dates that are not under the contractor's control must be provided either as fixed dates or dates traceable to contract inception.

(a) The Government is currently revisiting the period of performance structure (i.e., base period and option periods as provided in the Draft RFP) and will provide updates (if any) in the final RFP.

(b) The Government intends to modify Section 1.3 to clarify that the 90‐calendar day In‐orbit Checkout period is specific to the MAIA Instrument. The Contractor shall include any other necessary checkout periods in its overall proposed period of performance in Section 1.3.

(c) The current planned schedule for the MAIA Instrument CDR is September 2018. Note that the MAIA Instrument schedule is always subject to change.

DRFP Section 1.4, Place of Performance

Please clarify the phrase "and other sites as determined by the Contracting Officer."

This verbiage simply provides for flexibility to both the Contractor and Government to perform at other sites (e.g., meetings at NASA JPL or NASA HQ) without the need for a contract modification.

DRFP Section 2.2, 1852.225‐ 70, Export Licenses

In order for the Contractor to comply with 1852.225‐70, we suggest adding language to the effect that "NASA will notify Contractor of any participation of foreign national employees, contractors, subcontractors, or other foreign entities which may be in meetings or to which Contractor may be requested by NASA to provide data or services. NASA will provide Contractor any necessary information for these foreign national persons or companies so that Contractor is able to obtain any necessary U.S. Government authorizations."

The Government does not intend to obtain a deviation to this standard NASA FAR Supplement clause to make the requested revisions.

DRFP Section 2.2, 1852.227‐ 88, Government‐ Furnished Computer Software and Related Technical Data

The clause 1852.227‐88 should be removed unless NASA is providing computer software.

The Government does not intend to remove this clause in the event that it does provide the items noted within the clause.

DRFP Section 2.4, 52.217‐9, Option to Extend the Term of the Contract

Recommend that this be 30 or 60 calendar days before the contract expires.

The Government intends to revise this clause to increase the time period from 5 to 15 calendar days.

DRFP Section 2.8, 1852.245‐ 76, List of Government Furnished Property Pursuant to FAR 52.245‐1

(a) Will the Government please clarify the documents it intends to provide as a part of the final RFP, including whether the data interfaces, ground segment interfaces, and CONOPS related documents will be provided?

(b) Will a payload simulator be provided as part of the GFP; to be used for integration and testing with the spacecraft bus and ground system, checkout of commanding, anomaly support, etc.

(c) Will sample data files output from the MAIA instrument be provided as part of the GFP?

(d) Section 2.8(b) of the DRFP references the delivery availability date for the MAIA instrument as June 2022, and Section 6.4A of the SOW states the date as June 2020. Will the Government please clarify the delivery availability date for the MAIA Instrument?

(e) The DRFP lists three items of GFE while ICDs list several items of GFI e.g., MTICD44 "NASA shall deliver up to three FEM models of the MAIA Instrument t..." L3‐MTICD46 "NASA shall deliver up to three reduced node thermal models ...,"and L3‐MTICD48 "JPL NASA shall deliver final or test‐correlated FEM and thermal models ..."

There should be a consolidated GFE/GFI List as an attachment to the SOW specifying all deliverables from NASA to the Contractor.

As part of the RFP process, NASA should request all proposers to add or eliminate items from the list.

(a) These documents will continue to be provided in Attachment 3 to the RFP; the Government does intend to update these documents to provide as much additional information as feasible for the Final RFP.

(b) The Government does intend to provide such a simulator and intends to revise the Final RFP to include the details of such.

(c) Yes. The Government intends to update the clause at 1852.245‐76 to include sample data files.

(d) The correct date is June 2020. Section 2.8 will be revised to correct this date for the Final RFP.

(e) The Government intends to update the clause at 1852.245‐76 to include these items.

DRFP Section

2.12, LARC

52.215‐116, Enabling Clause

"In the performance of this contract, the Contractor agrees to cooperate with Caltech/JPL by: responding to invitations from authorized personnel to attend meetings; ... providing limited financial data including estimates." The SOW should clarify and define the number of meetings and financial estimates envisioned by this clause.

These types of activities are expected to be ad hoc as the project progresses and this Contractor coordinates/cooperates with NASA JPL as the Instrument builder. As such, the Government does not intend to provide such information or revise this clause.

DRFP Section 2.15, Additional Government‐ Furnished Property Terms and Conditions;

AND 2.18,

Licenses, Permits, and Insurance

Given that the MAIA instrument is transferred back to the US Government upon Launch Vehicle ignition, is it necessary for the Contractor to obtain a Department of Commerce license?

In accordance with clause 2.18, "The Contractor shall obtain and maintain the necessary licenses, permits, and clearances that may be required...in order to provide launch services under this contract." As such, the requirement is upon the Contractor to determine all necessary licenses, etc. that are required in performing this contract.

DRFP Section 5.2.2, Proposal Submission Information

(a) Will the Government consider permitting Offerors to submit Word documents in a .zip file? This might help with large file size transmittal.

(b) We recommend all files be submitted in PDF format and compatible with Adobe PDF Version 10.0 or later.

(c) For security reasons, we recommend the government establish a secure website where contractors can upload their proposals.

(d) "The total file size for the entire proposal shall not exceed 10Mb." Should this be MB (MBytes)?

(e) "The total file size for the entire proposal shall not exceed 10Mb." We suggest this limitation be applied only to Volumes 1 and 3. The Contract Offer, Milestone Payment Schedule, Work performance Matrix and Price are fill‐ins of Government provided documents and the AS9100 Compliance/Quality Plan requires potential submission of a large amount of pre‐existing documentation. The Contractor has no control over the size of these parts of the proposal.

(a) Submission of the proposal in a .ZIP file is acceptable.

(b) The Government does not intend to revise the formatting requirements as requested.

(c), (d), and (e) The Government intends to revise the Final RFP to allow for submission of the electronic proposal via CD or DVD. The Government does not envision providing for submission of any paper copies, however.

DRFP Section 5.2.4, 1852.215‐ 81, Proposal Page Limitations

(a) Should the Contractor submit both their Master Small Business Subcontracting Plan and a program Small Business Subcontracting Plan? If so, we suggest the Master subcontract plan be excluded from page count and the 10MB limit as it is a pre‐existing document.

(b) "The Offeror shall use Arial 11 font in its proposal (all volumes).

This font size restriction also applies to text in tables, graphics, and captions. We recommend the font size in tables be reduced to 10 point minimum and graphics be reduced to 8 point minimum. We recommend that the font size not be applied to fill‐ins and pre‐ existing documentation.

(a) While not required, the Offeror may submit a Master Small Business Subcontracting Plan as part of its individual Small Business Subcontracting Plan for this specific solicitation. However, the Government does not intend to increase the page limitations for the Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

(b) The Government does not intend to change the font size requirements. However, the Government does intend to revise the final RFP to exclude the AS9100 Compliance Documentation/Quality Plan from the font size restrictions.

DRFP Section 5.2.7, Technical Proposal ‐ Volume I

For the purposes of the proposal we suggest the Small Business Subcontracting plan address only the base contract.

The Government does not intend to exclude the standard requirement to include option periods (reference, for example, FAR 52.219‐9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, Alternate II, paragraphs (b) and (c)(1)).

DRFP Section 6.3, Evaluation Factors

There seems to be a discrepancy between Section 2.1 of the DRFP and Section 6.3 Evaluation Factors, Factor 2 – Price. DRFP Section

2.1 ‐ General states that this contract is for commercial services subject to FAR Part 12. However, Section 6.3 – Evaluation Factors, under Factor 2 – Price, states the Government will conduct a price analysis and evaluate the amounts proposed in accordance with FAR 15 15.404‐1(b) and (g).

Will the Government please clarify the FAR part under which this acquisition is being conducted? Also, if DRFP Sections 2.1 and 6.3 are not in conflict, please explain how the FAR Part 12 and Part 15 are both being used for this acquisition.

There is no conflict between the sections you note below. We are utilizing FAR Part 12 terms and conditions and the overall procedures allowed for under FAR Part 12 for a commercial services procurement. However, in accordance with FAR 12.102(b) (“Contracting officers shall use the policies in this part in conjunction with the policies and procedures for solicitation, evaluation and award prescribed in Part 13, Simplified Acquisition Procedures; Part 14, Sealed Bidding; or Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, as appropriate for the particular acquisition.”), FAR 12.203 (“Contracting officers shall use the policies unique to the acquisition of commercial items prescribed in this part in conjunction with the policies and procedures for solicitation, evaluation and award prescribed in Part 13, Simplified Acquisition Procedures; Part 14, Sealed Bidding; or Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, as appropriate for the particular acquisition.”), and FAR 12.301(c)(2) (“When the use of evaluation factors is appropriate, the contracting officer may—Include a similar provision containing all evaluation factors required by 13.106, subpart 14.2 or subpart 15.3, as an addendum (see 12.302(d)).”), we are also utilizing FAR Part 15 evaluation procedures in conjunction with the overall FAR Part 12 procedures.

Exhibit A, SOW, Section 1.1, Introduction

In addition to the tasks listed, JPL should also support planning and preparation activities for Observatory I&T, launch, and launch integration activities including procedure development, the delivery of models, data, instrument scripts, and procedures, and the attendance and participation in working groups.

The Government does not intend to revise this section based on the verbiage provided therein (i.e., "...will include the following minimum activities…"). As such, this introductory section provides the broad scope of the JPL activities during performance of this contract.

Exhibit A, SOW, Figure 1, MAIA Mission Architecture

(a) The drawing provided assumes total control of the spacecraft from the JPL IOC. This is a hosted mission where spacecraft TT&C will be performed by the spacecraft manufacturer MOC. The drawing should include the host MOC to correctly reflect the communication path.

(b) Will the contractor ground segment be required to have a backup Mission Ops Center, and if so, what functionality must it have?

(c) Is it anticipated that the system will interface with the NASA IONet?

(a) Figure 1 of Exhibit A, SOW, is not intended to capture the total control of the Contractor spacecraft, only the control of the MAIA Instrument and the distribution of MAIA Instrument data. The control of the Contractor spacecraft is expected to be performed by the Contractor Ground System (CGS) using the architecture required by the Contractor.

(b) While a backup mission operations center is not specifically required by the Government, the Contractor is required to provide reliability and coverage adequate to support the full MAIA Mission requirements as detailed in the solicitation.

(c) The Government does not intend to require any interface with the NASA IONet; however, the Offeror is not precluded from interfacing NASA IONet.

Exhibit A, SOW, Section 3.1, Reference Documents

"When apparent conflicts exist between this contract and these reference documents, the Contractor shall notify the Contracting Officer that there is such a conflict and request direction from the Contracting Officer as to how to proceed." If these documents are truly reference documents then the contract should take precedence in every case. The SOW requirement contradicts the DRFP which states these documents are not incorporated in the contract. Please clarify.

The intent is to ensure all documents are consistent for the execution of this contract. While the contract does take precedence, it is prudent for all parties involved to identify any potential conflicts to ensure mission success. Therefore, the Government does not intend to revised this verbiage.

Exhibit A, SOW, Section 4.1, Schedule

Recommended wording changes (verbiage added is underlined):

The host spacecraft provider and payload provider shall jointly generate and status a project schedule with the Monthly Project Status Report (MPSR) (DRL/DRD PM‐1), to include critical milestones, schedule reserve tracking, and an assessment of schedule risk. The master schedule shall be maintained by the host spacecraft provider.

The resultant contract levies requirements on the Hosting Services Contractor to support the overall NASA/JPL MAIA project. As such, the Government does not intend to make the suggested revisions.

Exhibit A, SOW, Section 4.2, Reviews and Meetings

Recommended wording changes (verbiage added is underlined):

The host spacecraft provider and payload provider shall jointly participate in and support a variety of formal and informal reviews and meetings as set forth below.

The resultant contract levies requirements on the Hosting Services Contractor to support the overall NASA/JPL MAIA project. As such, the Government does not intend to make the suggested revisions.

Exhibit A, SOW, Section 4.2.2, Support to Formal NASA Led Key Decision Points (KDPs) and Project Reviews

(a) Insert spacecraft reviews: Mission TRR and Mission PSR

(b) Other than travel and time at the event, should the contractor bid any support in terms of data or deliverables for the SMSR, LRR, and DR?

(c) The text says "NASA led KDPs and reviews for the MAIA Project include the following." Are there additional reviews the contractor must support?

(d) Is the Sept 2020 LRR date correct? The post launch assessment review is not until June 2022.

(e) Sections 4.2.2 says the Launch Readiness Review is a NASA led meeting. Since the launch is contractor supplied, it should be a contractor meeting with NASA participation.

(a) SOW Section 4.2.2. is a listing of the NASA‐led reviews for the MAIA Project that the Contractor shall support as the Hosting Services Contractor. The Contractor‐ required Hosting Services Test Readiness Review (TRR) is stated in SOW Section 6.1.2.D and Exhibit B, DRL/DRD RE‐4; the Contractor‐required Pre‐Ship Review is stated in SOW Section 6.3.4.B.

(b) Yes. The Contractor shall provide the services required in SOW Section 4.2.2.

(c) The current known reviews are included in the solicitation; any updates will be provided with the Final RFP.

(d)The Government is reviewing all provided dates and intends to provide updates, as applicable, in the Final RFP.

(e) The Launch Readiness Review (LRR) stated in SOW Section 4.2.2. is a NASA‐led review for the overall MAIA Project for which this Contractor will support based on the specific scope of this Hosting Services requirement. Any Contractor‐planned "LRR" for its own commercial activities would be in addition to this review and not covered within the scope of this contract.

Exhibit A, SOW, Section 4.2.3, Technical Interchange Meetings

(a) What is the frequency and duration of the additional virtual reviews?

(b) What are the length of the reviews at JPL?

(a) and (b) The specifics of each meeting will be determined by both NASA and the Contractor during execution and based on the needs of the project.

Exhibit A, SOW, Section 4.3, On‐ Site Representatives

Could the DSAC model better serve your needs, and keep costs low?

The Government does not intent to revise the solicitation to reflect the Deep Space Atomic Clock (DSAC) project model.

Section 5.0, Configuration Control/Manage ment, Quality Control, and Safety and Mission Assurance

(a) Could the DSAC model better serve your needs, and keep costs low?

(b) For a Hosted Payload mission, not all discrepancies will be related to or affect the MAIA payload. This should be modified to reflect only MAIA discrepancies.

(c) For Section (F), can NASA provide guidance on what specific policies will be mandated regarding spacecraft disposal?

(d) At what point do the mishap and other reporting requirements begin? Is this with the delivery of the instrument?

(e) A FMEA rather than a FMECA analysis is more appropriate for this interface.

(f) In order to assess compliance with end‐of‐life disposal requirements, please provide a debris casualty assessment for the instrument.

(a) The Government does not intent to revise the solicitation to reflect the DSAC project model.

(b) It is understood that not all discrepancies will be related to the MAIA Instrument. However, the Government does not intend to revise the requirements for such reporting for the final RFP because this information will improve the understanding of Contractor spacecraft reliability and Contractor capabilities to ensure a successful mission (e.g., data to be utilized for NASA‐required risk assessments and reporting).

(c) The Contractor is required to meet all legal and commercial requirements as stated in this SOW Section and in Clause 2.19, Licenses, Permits, and Insurance. The Government does not intend to specify each specific policy in the Final RFP. (See also DRFP Sections 2.17, Compliance with Safety and Occupational Health Standards, and 2.18, Licenses, Permits, and Insurance.)

(d) The reporting requirements are in effect throughout the entire contract period of performance.

(e) The Government intends to revise the Final RFP to require a Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) in lieu of the current requirement for a Failure Modes and Effects Criticality Analysis (FMECA).

(f) An Abbreviated Orbital Debris Assessment Report (ODAR) is currently in process and is intended to be provided to the Contractor post‐award.

Exhibit A, SOW, Section 6, General

The contractor should be referred to as the hosted payload provider. A bus is not being purchased. Rather hosted services provided.

This effort is for Hosting "Services" and the Contractor shall provide all required "Services." The Government is not procuring a product. The Government does not intend to revise the terminology as requested as the solicitation is already clear that this is a services procurement.

Exhibit A, SOW, Section 6.1, MAIA Mission Hosting Services and Integration Planning (CLIN 1)

(a) The contractor is responsible for mission integration including the launch system. The customer should communicate their insight expectations in a SOW paragraph and there an associated DRD.

(b) Additionally, the instrument team will need to provide data to support launch vehicle integration and preparation of documentation e.g., MSPSP data, required services, etc.

(a) The Government does not intend to revised the SOW to add any additional information regarding "insight expectations." Please reference SOW Section 4.3, On‐Site Representatives, for additional information.

(b) The Government intends to provide the necessary instrument data to support required access‐to‐space documentation. For example, details of documents and information needed from the Government by the Contractor should be captured as part of the receivables/deliverables list developed for the Hosting Services Requirements Review (HSRR) (reference Exhibit B, DRL/DRD RE‐1, paragraph A.5.).

Exhibit A, SOW, Section 6.1.1, Requirements Definition and Verification Planning (CLIN 1)

Items 1‐13 duplicate requirements in other documents and should be eliminated from the SOW.

Yes, these items are duplicative and the Government does not intend to remove from the SOW based on the language at SOW Section 6.1.1(B): "NOTE: The following items provided in the 'MAIA Interface Control Documents Summary' reference document shall not be changed by the Contractor when finalizing the documents required in DRL/DRD TE‐1 unless otherwise approved by the Contracting Officer (all figures noted below are references to figures in the reference document and not within this SOW):" (emphasis in original)

Exhibit A, SOW, Section 6.1.2, Hosting Services Design Reviews

(CLIN 1)

To reduce cost, the [H]SRR and PDR can be effectively combined.

The Government does not intend to revise the solicitation to merge/combine the reviews. However, an Offeror may propose such an approach in its proposal (e.g., in Section 1.3, Periods of Performance) to hold the reviews at the same time/date.

Exhibit A, SOW, Section 6.1.3, Mission Design, Integration Planning, and Analysis (CLIN 1)

(a) The Coupled Loads Model is an unnecessary deliverable. The spacecraft model should be considered but not a deliverable for launch services.

(b) Are correlated models truly need for the payload?

(c) MAIA Test Procedures. Any procedures for payload testing can be deliverable, not spacecraft procedures as there may exist other payloads with procedures that are not releasable.

(d) "D. Deliver ... and execute the MAIA Test Procedures." This is not possible without significant JPL GFI including instrument command and telemetry information, I&T procedures, scripts, and GSE design and operating instructions. These should be added to a GFE/GFI list with associated delivery dates.

(a) Reports describing Coupled Loads Analysis (CLA) results are required so that the MAIA Instrument team can ensure that resonant frequencies do not align; the CLA should be based on validated models where validation can be either based on correlation with test results or demonstrated data. As such, the Government does not intend to revise the current Coupled Loads requirements as stated in the solicitation.

(b) Yes, a correlated thermal model is needed. (Note that if the Contractor spacecraft model has been demonstrated to be accurate, then it is correlated, and such justification of the demonstrated accuracy should be provided to address the requirement of DRL/DRD TE‐13, Spacecraft Coupled Loads Analysis Report and Coupled Loads Model.)

(c) Correct. Reference DRL/DRD TE‐4, which states the purpose is "To provide the detailed step‐by‐step procedures for Contractor integration and testing that involves MAIA hardware." (emphasis added)

(d) This cannot be done comprehensively without knowing and working with the selected Contractor. As such, details of documents and information needed from the Government by the Contractor should be captured as part of the receivables/deliverables list developed for the Hosting Services Requirements Review (HSRR) (reference DRL/DRD RE‐1, paragraph A.5.).

Exhibit A, SOW, Section 6.2, Contractor Ground System Design, Integration, Testing, and Readiness (CLIN 1)

Is any of the data associated with MAIA considered Controlled, Unclassified Info (e.g. SBU or FOUO)?

At the current time, the data that comes off of the MAIA Instrument is planned to be unclassified (i.e., not SBU or FOUO).

Section 6.3.1, Contractor Spacecraft and Ground System Simulators (CLIN 1)

(a) Is the simulator envisioned in 6.3.1 expected to interface/connect to instrument flight hardware?

(b) Is the simulator expected to incorporate EM spacecraft‐bus hardware?

(c) Is the simulator expected to replicate spacecraft/instrument data‐bus timing?

(d) Request that the spacecraft simulator by provided 60 days after contract award, rather than HSRR.

(e) Delivery of a spacecraft simulator by HSRR is unrealistic. By this stage the requirements for the spacecraft and instrument interfaces are not defined. A date closer to CDR is more realistic.

(f) Items 1‐10 are more appropriate for a Data Requirements Description (DRD). There needs to be a DRD created to describe the content and format of the files and requirements for the data stream.

(a) Yes, it is envisioned that the simulator will connect with instrument engineering development units and flight hardware. The Government intends to add clarity to SOW 6.3.1. for the final RFP.

(b) The Contractor may provide a simulator that is represented by non‐flight hardware as long as the simulator meets the requirements to functionally/electrically perform as the Contractor spacecraft performs at the interfaces (as required in the solicitation). Note that an interface FMEA needs to be performed prior to integration and the Government intends to incorporate requirements for such in the Final RFP.

(c) Yes, the Contractor simulator is expected to replicate Contractor spacecraft/MAIA Instrument communications and the timing/performance on those interfaces; the Ground System simulator is expected to replicate Contractor Ground System/MAIA Mission communications and data flow. The Government intends to update the final RFP to add clarity.

(d) and (e) The Government is reviewing all dates provided in the Draft RFP and intends to revise such dates, as necessary, for the Final RFP.

(f) The intent is to keep all of the simulator requirements in one location. As such, the Government does not intent to move these items to Exhibit B, DRL/DRD.

Exhibit A, SOW, Section 6.3.2, MAIA

Instrument Delivery, Receipt, Inspection, and Handling (CLIN 1)

(a) "D. Operate and physically handle the MAIA Instrument, in coordination with NASA personnel, by providing power, command link, and data transfer via the spacecraft bus and associated spacecraft GSE." What is JPL's role when Instrument GSE is required during Observatory I&T?

(b) If the government desires to specify contamination requirements for MAIA, we suggest a Contamination Control Requirements document be created and included in the final RFP.

(a) JPL personnel (part of NASA) will be present and involved whenever the MAIA Instrument will be operated, tested, and/or handled during Integration and Test (reference SOW Section 4.3, On‐Site Representatives).

(b) The MAIA Instrument Contamination Control Plan is currently under development and is intended to be provided to the Contractor post‐award. Note, however, the contract requirements for contamination control are listed in Exhibit C, MRD, Section 2.2, Environment and Contamination Requirements.

Exhibit A, SOW, Section 6.3.3, System Level Integration and Testing (CLIN 1)

(a) Spacecraft Acoustics Test, if applicable: This should be driven by the LV selected, not the payload. If the LV would require it, a requirement would then be flowed at the spacecraft/system level.

(b) What does the word "certified" in the statement: "The Contractor Spacecraft, in a certified Electromagnetic Interference and Compatibility (EMI/EMC) chamber," mean? Certified to what standard?

(c) Please define the Camera Imaging test and describe the potential MAIA stimulus GSE.

(a) Agree. The Government notes that the Spacecraft Acoustics Test is stated as "if applicable" in the SOW for this very reason. As such, the Government does not intend to revise the Final RFP to add additional clarity.

(b) There is no specific standard to be met. As such, the Government intends to revise this verbiage to read "Contractor‐Certified" for the final RFP.

(c) The Government intends to define the specific parameters with the selected Contractor leading up to the Contractor HSRR (reference SOW Section 6.1.2.A).

Exhibit A, SOW, Section 6.4, Launch and

MAIA

Instrument In‐ Orbit Checkout and On‐Orbit Operations

(CLIN 1)

(a) The dates in this section do not agree with Section 4.2.2.

(b) As MAIA is a hosted payload, is there flexibility in the June 2022

LRD?

(c) For paragraph (h), Please change "256 bit standards" to "AES256 standards".

(d) We recommend the requirement "Encrypt all communications between the Contractor Spacecraft and the Contractor Ground System and also between the Contractor Ground System and the MAIA Ground System by utilizing 256 bit standards following FIPS 197, Advanced Encryption Standards (AES)" be changed to "Encrypt all command uplink communications between the Contractor Ground System and the Contractor Spacecraft by utilizing 256 bit standards following FIPS 197." We see no compelling reason or higher level NASA/Federal requirement to encrypt downlinked science or spacecraft data. Based on our experience, science data can be transferred from the ground station to the science center from a password‐protected website over the internet.

(e) Are there any requirements for a hardware tech refresh at some point during the base operations period, or as part of any of the subsequent extensions?

(a) The Government intends to update all stated dates, as necessary, to ensure consistency within the solicitation and the MAIA project as a whole. See also DRFP Q&A 29.

(b) The stated no later than launch date in the solicitation is the latest date acceptable to the Government. However, if the Government revises the current stated date (i.e., June 2022), it will be so provided in the Final RFP.

(c) and (d) The Government does not intend to revise SOW Section 6.4.H, as requested, as 256 bit encryption shall be utilized throughout the complete uplink, downlink, and transferring to the data center. The Government is exploring whether additional security requirements will be needed. If so, they will be included in the final RFP release.

(e) As this is a services procurement, the Contractor shall perform any such refreshes or other actions it deems necessary to meet the stated requirements for this effort.

As such, the Government does not intend to state any such requirement in the Final RFP.

Section 6.5, Extended Operations (CLINs 2, 3 & 4)

(a) Please clarify the definition of required extended operations after completion of the Mission Operations Base Period.

(b) Please define the scope of On‐Orbit health and performance reporting during extended operations and NASA's access to Contractor Ground System facilities during Extended Operation requirements.

(a) and (b) As stated in SOW Section 6.5, "The Contractor shall perform any required extended operations after completion of the Mission Operations Base Period and any previously exercised Extended Operations option period in accordance with all applicable requirements of this SOW." As such, the Contractor shall continue to meet all applicable contract requirements during these extended operations.

Exhibit B, DRL/DRD, General

Deliverables need to ensure that the hosted payload services remain a service. Not all data will be releasable, as there may be other hosted payloads on the bus.

Noted. The Government intends to perform a thorough review of the DRL/DRD prior to issuance of the Final RFP.

Exhibit C, MRD;

AND

Attachment 3.4, ICD Summary;

General

Requirements are duplicated between these documents. We suggest requirements be in only one place with only one requirement identification.

This duplication is normal and inherent in the requirements flow (e.g., from Level 2 as specified in the Exhibit C, MRD, to the Level 3 requirements as specified in the Attachment 3.4, ICD Summary). Further, any duplicate requirement can be verified only once.

Exhibit C, MRD, Section 1.5, MAIA Hosting Services Mission Architecture

Is the CONOPS that the MAIA IOC sends commands bent‐pipe through the CGS? Do the operators in the CGS have any control of, or insight into, those commands?

Yes, the CONOPS is that the MAIA Instrument Operations Center (IOC) sends commands bent‐pipe through the Contractor Ground System (CGS). Some additional detail will be provided in the final RFP documents. Further, the Contractor's need/desire for insight into MAIA commmands will be handled post‐award during development of the relevant ground system ICD. (Reference DRL/DRD TE‐1)

Exhibit C, MRD, Section 1.6.2, Reference Documents

Will the documents listed in this table (docs RD‐1 through RD‐7) be included with the RFP package?

RD‐1 (MAIA Project Interface Control Documents (ICD) Summary), RD‐2 (MAIA Project Environmental Requirements Summary), and RD‐7 (MAIA Project Concept of Operations) are already provided with the solicitation as Attachments 3.4, 3.5, and 3.1, respectively. The remaining documents are publically/commercially available documents that can be obtained by the Offeror.

Exhibit C, MRD, Section 2.1, Mission Durations, ID: L1‐ M3

Traditional LEOP is 30 days. While 90 can be accommodated, the cost of having engineers engaged in pre‐commissioning activities for this long may not be necessary. What can be done in 90 days that can't be done in 30? Change to 30 if possible. Assuming once critical satellite systems are checked out, the payload and remaining system checkout/calibration effort can occur in parallel.

This will help minimize cost.

The Government intends to revise ID L1‐M3 to clarify that the 90‐calendar day In‐Orbit Checkout Period applies to the MAIA Instrument; however, the timeframe of 90‐ calendar days is expected to remain unchanged. See also MRD ID L2‐M4 for additional clarity.

Exhibit C, MRD, Section 2.2, Environmental and Contamination Requirements, ID L2‐H63

While not all materials shed, friction causes most materials to abrade. Spacecraft produce debris during vibe or acoustic testing.

We suggest changing the requirement to "After vibration testing, the Contractor shall inspect the flight hardware and clean all debris as to re‐establish the surface cleanliness requirement prior to the next level of testing."

The Government intends to revise ID L2‐H63 to: "The Contractor Spacecraft materials shall not shed or otherwise generate particulate debris during normal operation and aging on orbit".

Exhibit C, MRD, Section 2.3, Orbit Requirements, ID L2‐H16 and L‐ 2‐H67

What are the bounds on the proposed Beginning of Life LTAN, LTAN +/‐ 15 minutes? Is the end of life LTAN allowable proposed LTAN +/‐ 30 minutes or initial achieved LTAN +/‐ 30 minutes?

Exhibit C, MRD, Section 2.3, Orbit Requirements, and Attachment 3.3, Orbit Considerations, Section 2.1, Sun Synchronicity and Mean Local Time of Equator Crossing, require that both the beginning of life Local Time of Ascending Node (LTAN) and end of life LTAN must be within either the 9:00 am ‐ 11:30 am or 12:30 pm ‐ 3:00 pm window, that any drift not take the LTAN outside of this window, and that the difference between the maximum and minimum LTAN during the mission shall not exceed 30 minutes.

Exhibit C, MRD, Section 2.3, Orbit Requirements, ID L2‐H68

Is the intent of this requirement to control the osculating value, or should the contractor assume a particular set of mean elements?

For example, gravitational perturbations on a notional 700 km SSO with zero eccentricity cause the osculating value of eccentricity to exceed 0.001 for the baseline orbit. Please clarify the requirement.

The stated values of the orbital elements refer to the mean values. The Government intends to modify ID L2‐H68 to reflect this.

Exhibit C, MRD, Section 2.4.1, Contractor Ground System Operational Requirements, ID: L2‐H27

Respectfully request this requirement be revised to at least 24 hours advance notice prior to the planned orbit burn to account for situations such as collision avoidance which may require a faster turnaround for a satellite with the target altitude range of this mission.

The referenced requirement is for planned operations only. However, the Government does not intend to revise the existing 72‐hour requirement. Further details of handling unplanned operations will be developed during ICD development post award. (Reference DRL/DRD TE‐1)

Exhibit C, MRD, Section 2.4.1, Contractor Ground System Operational Requirements, ID: L2‐H32

L2‐42 and L2‐77 require the contractor is required to support daily uplinks during normal operations and 3x daily during checkout.

There is also a requirement to notify the project within an hour of an anomaly. (L2‐H32). Those two requirements are inconsistent.

The contractor may not know of an anomaly for several hours after it occurs on‐board. Recommend L2‐H32 be reworded to indicate the contractor is required to notify the project within an hour of anomaly detection, not occurrence.

As ID L2‐H32 already indicates "...after anomaly detection by the Contractor Ground System" the Government does not intend to revise this item further based on this question.

Exhibit C, MRD, Section 2.4.1, Contractor Ground System Operational Requirements, ID: L2‐H42

Does this refer to daily uplinks that are dedicated to realtime operations of MAIA from the IOC?

No. Realtime telemetry is available during overpasses, which is not the same as realtime operations. Daily uplink opportunities provide the ability to uplink new commands/sequences to the MAIA Instrument daily, which should be performed by the Contractor (hence why ID L2‐H49 specifies that the daily uplink includes responding to requests for updates received at least 12 hours before that uplink to give the Contractor time to process the request prior to uplink).

Exhibit C, MRD, Section 2.4.1, Contractor Ground System Operational Requirements, ID: L2‐H46

(a) ID: L2‐H46 provides that the Contractor shall provide a time history of Contractor Spacecraft attitude to the MAIA Ground System with 1 ms granularity. Will the Government please clarify the frequency with which this information is to be provided by the Contractor?

(b) Need to specify that this is for observation periods only.

Assuming this is for spacecraft attitude reconstruction on the ground to geolocate targets. This would be measured spacecraft attitude (knowledge) and assumes implementation of a high bandwidth sensor like an IMU running at < 500Hz to allow the attitude data to be sampled at 1000Hz with no aliasing. The IMU would not be required for anything but payload ops.

(a) This data is to be delivered to the MAIA Instrument Operations Center (IOC) when MAIA science data packets are delivered to the MAIA Science Operations Center (SOC) and LaRC Atmospheric Science Data Center (ASDC). The Government intends to add this clarity to the Final RFP.

(b) The requirement applies to observation periods only to geolocate targets. As noted in the answer to DRFP Q&A # 92, interpolation is expected to provide attitude data at 1 ms granularity. Contractor spacecraft performance will dictate the sampling frequency that can be used for this calculation. Because the Contractor will understand its spacecraft performance better than the Government, this activity is best performed by the Contractor.

Exhibit C, MRD, Section 2.4.1, Contractor Ground System Operational Requirements, ID: L2‐H49

(a) Are updates to the collection requirements expected to be received anytime, including off‐hours?

(b) Recommend establishing a planning concept of operations that best serves the needs of the science mission while allowing contractor to staff their operational crew against a predictable cadence for these planning activities.

(a) The 12 hours specified in L2‐H49 allows for reasonable work scheduling during nominal operations. Typical uplinks may be less frequent, but the Government intends to preserve the 12‐hour requirement to be able to respond to any anomalies/science needs for targets of opportunity at any time (e.g., we can't schedule volcanic eruptions). The Government does not assume 24‐hour per day Contractor support will be required.

(b) Establishing a planning concept of operations requires input from the eventual Contractor. However, the Government has required the critical items to the science mission with the solicitation; where there is a lack of a specific requirement, there will be flexibility in the CONOPS with the selected Contractor.

Exhibit C, MRD, Section 2.4.1, Contractor Ground System Operational Requirements, ID: L2‐H77

Does this refer to daily uplinks that are dedicated to realtime operations of MAIA from the IOC?

Refer to the response to DRFP Q&A #54.

Exhibit C, MRD, Section 2.4.1, Contractor Ground System Operational Requirements, ID: L2‐H78

Are these requirements 1 sigma or 3 sigma? Not applicable as this is a requirement on latency; it's an absolute requirement of 48 hours.

Exhibit C, MRD, Section 2.4.2, Contractor Ground System Data Handling Requirements, ID: L2‐H24

Provide additional detail on when the real‐time commanding of the MAIA instrument will be used. Is this for commissioning or also for the high‐priority data collection events described in L2‐H43? Need to understand ground system concept of operations further in order to define operational interfaces between the IOC and the contractor ground system.

Refer to the response to DRFP Q&A #54. The Government also intends to revise Exhibit C, MRD, to clarify "realtime" to be within 5 seconds.

Exhibit C, MRD, Section 2.4.2, Contractor Ground System Data Handling Requirements, ID: L2‐H38

Please clarify this requirement. What is the expected confirmation time from transmission of the data to the Ground System? What are the criteria for a retransmission request?

The requirement is to store a rolling set of 7 calendar days of data that is continuously replaced. The Government intends to revise ID L2‐H38 to remove: "until data receipt is confirmed by the MAIA Ground System in accordance the MAIA Ground System‐to‐Contractor Ground System ICD (Reference DRL/DRD TE‐1)."

Exhibit C, MRD, Section 2.5, Contractor Spacecraft Requirements, ID L2‐H7

(a) Is 3‐sigma required? Or will 1‐sigma suffice to achieve the lowest possible mission cost? Assuming this is to say no axis should have a pointing knowledge accuracy worse than 0.035 deg. 3‐sigma is typically seen for more risk averse missions. To achieve involves tighter control over knowledge error sources which can have significant cost impacts.

(b) This requirement is confusing. Is the requirement for RSS, which is roughly equivalent to 1‐sigma, or 3‐sigma? Or does the RSS refer to summing over all axes? If so, then it is redundant with the “in all axes” phrase. Please clarify.

(a) and (b) A 3‐sigma value is required in each axis, which are Root Sum Squared (RSS)‐combined together to meet the requirement (Pointing knowledge of this level of accuracy is required to perform the science requirements of the MAIA Instrument.). The Government intends to revise ID L2‐H47 to clarify this.

Section 2.5, Contractor Spacecraft Requirements, ID L2‐H8

(a) Assuming this requirement is to ensure the spacecraft has settled within 2 seconds of MAIA imparting an internal torque to the vehicle (prior to observation)? AND that the vehicle does not deviate more than 10 arc seconds over a 0.5 second interval (during observation). Suggest breaking these out into two separate requirements. This appears to be two requirements. One for short‐ term pointing stability, and one for spacecraft settling.

(b) The settling time is too short and we recommend at least 5 sec.

(a) The requirement applies to observation modes only. Within 2 seconds after the MAIA Instrument imparts a disturbance to the Contractor spacecraft, the Contractor spacecraft shall have settled so that pointing stability will drift less than 10 arcsec for a 0.5 second time period. The Government intends to add this additional clarity to the Exhibit C, MRD, for the Final RFP.

(b) The Government requires a settling time of 2 seconds and therefore does not intend to revise the requirement.

Exhibit C, MRD, Section 2.5, Contractor Spacecraft Requirements, ID L2‐H45

The Contractor Spacecraft shall maintain the position of the MAIA Instrument boresight to within 0.1 degree (1‐sigma) in the yaw axis with respect to during MAIA observation modes. Again, needed to verify performance. Also implies no deviation from 0.1 deg is tolerable during observation.

The Government intends to revise ID L2‐H45 to indicate that this requirement only applies after 2 seconds after a MAIA Instrument disturbance while observing and a will also provide a confidence interval.

Exhibit C, MRD, Section 2.5, Contractor Spacecraft…