Attachment A - SMBA Statement of Work.pdf

Effective Date: February 17, 2023

Check the JPSS/LEO MIS Server at https://jpssmis.gsfc.nasa.gov/frontmenu_dsp.cfm to verify that this is the correct version prior to use.

470-SMBA-00434, Revision - Sounder for Microwave-Based Applications (SMBA) Code 470

Near Earth Orbit Network (NEON) Program Sounder for Microwave-Based Applications

(SMBA)

Phase A Study Statement of Work (SOW)

Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, Maryland

JPSS Reviewed – Not Subject to Export Control

GSFC SMBA CMO

February 17, 2023

Released

SMBA Phase A SOW 470-SMBA-00434, Revision -ii Check the JPSS/LEO MIS Server at https://jpssmis.gsfc.nasa.gov/frontmenu_dsp.cfm to verify that this is the correct version prior to use.

Use or disclosure of data contained on this page is subject to the restriction(s) on the title page of this document.

Sounder for Microwave-Based Applications (SMBA) Phase A Study Statement of Work (SOW)

Review/Signature/Approval Page

Prepared By:

Jessica Knizhnik SMBA Instrument Manager NASA GSFC LEO Programs Division Code 470

Reviewed By:

Roger Clason Deputy Director of the Office of LEO Observations NASA GSFC LEO Programs Division Code 470

Approved By:

Timothy Walsh Director of the Office of LEO Observations NOAA NESDIS Office of LEO Observations

Electronic Approval available on-line at: https://jpssmis.gsfc.nasa.gov/frontmenu_dsp.cfm https://jpssmis.gsfc.nasa.gov/frontmenu_dsp.cfm iii Check the JPSS/LEO MIS Server at https://jpssmis.gsfc.nasa.gov/frontmenu_dsp.cfm to verify that this is the correct version prior to use.

Use or disclosure of data contained on this page is subject to the restriction(s) on the title page of this document.

Preface

This document is under NEON Program configuration control. Once this document is approved, NEON Program approved changes are handled in accordance with Class I and Class II change control requirements as described in the NEON Program Configuration Management Procedures, and changes to this document shall be made by complete revision.

Any questions should be addressed to:

NEON Program Configuration Management Office

NASA/GSFC

Code 470 Greenbelt, MD 20771 iv Check the JPSS/LEO MIS Server at https://jpssmis.gsfc.nasa.gov/frontmenu_dsp.cfm to verify that this is the correct version prior to use.

Use or disclosure of data contained on this page is subject to the restriction(s) on the title page of this document.

Change History Log

Revision Effective Date Description of Changes

Rev. – February 17, 2023 This version incorporates 470-CCR-22-0370 which was approved by the SMBA ERB on December 22, 2022, and by the SMBA CCB on the effective date shown.

v Check the JPSS/LEO MIS Server at https://jpssmis.gsfc.nasa.gov/frontmenu_dsp.cfm to verify that this is the correct version prior to use.

Use or disclosure of data contained on this page is subject to the restriction(s) on the title page of this document.

Table of Deviations/Waivers

Item No. Deviation / Waiver Waiver Approved Effectivity vi Check the JPSS/LEO MIS Server at https://jpssmis.gsfc.nasa.gov/frontmenu_dsp.cfm to verify that this is the correct version prior to use.

Use or disclosure of data contained on this page is subject to the restriction(s) on the title page of this document.

Table of TBDs/TBRs/TBSs

Item No. Location Summary Individual/

Organization Due Date vii Check the JPSS/LEO MIS Server at https://jpssmis.gsfc.nasa.gov/frontmenu_dsp.cfm to verify that this is the correct version prior to use.

Use or disclosure of data contained on this page is subject to the restriction(s) on the title page of this document.

Table of Contents

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Reference Documents

1.2 Overview

1.2.1 Top-Level Summary of Work Required

1.2.2 Guiding Assumptions About the Eventual Flight Program

2 TASKS

2.1 Trade Studies

2.2 SMBA Design Concept Development and Related Analyses

2.2.1 SMBA Design

2.2.2 Predicted Performance vs. PSD

2.2.3 PSD and IMAR Compliance

2.2.4 Suggested Values for TBRs, TBSs, and TBDs

2.2.5 Reliability Approach

2.2.6 Single Point Failures and Fault Critical Elements

2.2.7 Master Equipment List (MEL)

2.2.8 Modeling and Simulation Tool Description

2.3 Technology Assessment and Demonstration

2.3.1 Technology Development Plan

2.3.1.1 Technology Development Effort (is applicable)

2.3.2 Heritage Assessment

2.3.3 ETU Philosophy and Plan

2.4 Management Planning

2.4.1 Risk Assessment

2.4.1.1 Risk Mitigation Effort (if applicable)

2.4.2 Flight Implementation Schedule

2.4.2.1 Suggested F5 – F9 Dates

2.4.3 Flight Cost Estimate

3 REVIEWS, REPORTING, AND DELIVERABLE PRODUCTS

3.1 Status Meetings and Reviews

3.1.1 Kickoff Meeting

3.1.2 Monthly Progress Review (MPR)

3.1.3 Midterm Review (MTR)

3.1.4 Final Study Review (FSR)

3.1.5 Final Report Package (FRP)

3.1.6 Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL)

APPENDIX A ACRONYMS

viii Check the JPSS/LEO MIS Server at https://jpssmis.gsfc.nasa.gov/frontmenu_dsp.cfm to verify that this is the correct version prior to use.

Use or disclosure of data contained on this page is subject to the restriction(s) on the title page of this document.

List of Tables

Table 1: Reference Documents Table 2: Initial Delivery Schedule Table 3: Follow-On Delivery Schedule Table 4: CDRLs

Check the JPSS/LEO MIS Server at https://jpssmis.gsfc.nasa.gov/frontmenu_dsp.cfm to verify that this is the correct version prior to use.

Use or disclosure of data contained on this page is subject to the restriction(s) on the title page of this document.

1 INTRODUCTION

The Sounder for Microwave-Based Applications (SMBA) will be a backbone microwave sounding instrument that is planned to fly on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Near Earth Orbit Network (NEON) program series of satellites. The NEON Program provides a framework to provide global measurements of earth systems through satellites managed by NOAA, and federal, commercial, and international partners. These environmental measurements will be able to support a wide variety of atmospheric, terrestrial, marine, and polar observations. The data uses include the numerical weather prediction models, fire and flood models, atmospheric chemistry observations, and multiple land imagery products that have been a crucial piece of the NOAA strategic goal to create a “Weather Ready Nation” and which provide essential information to NOAA’s broader environmental stewardship mission.

Following the recommendations from the 2017 NOAA Satellite Observation System Architecture Study, the NEON Program intends to use a combination of small and medium satellite platforms in a disaggregated architecture. This approach will provide an efficient means of filling gaps quickly and taking advantage of emerging remote sensing technologies.

The Instrument will meet, as a minimum, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA’s) requirements as defined in this Statement of Work (SOW), SMBA Instrument Performance Specification Document (PSD) (470-SMBA-00435), and SMBA Instrument Mission Assurance Requirements (IMAR) (470-SMBA-00436). For this procurement, in the case of any conflicting requirements, the PSD requirement takes precedence.

This SOW specifies the vendor requirements for performing definition-phase studies and design development as part of SMBA formulation activities.

1.1 Reference Documents

The Reference Documents listed below are referred to within the SOW and contain information relating to the work required. The documents do not contain provisions that constitute requirements of this SOW, but rather server to clarify the requirements.

Table 1: Reference Documents

Document Number Revision Document Title 470-SMBA-00435 * SMBA Instrument Performance Specification

Document 470-SMBA-00436 * SMBA Instrument Mission Assurance Requirements NPR 8705.4 April 29, NASA Procedural Requirements: Risk Classification for NASA Payloads

NPR 7123.1 Revalidated with Change 2 February 14, 2020

NASA Procedural Requirements: NASA Systems Engineering Processes and Requirements

Check the JPSS/LEO MIS Server at https://jpssmis.gsfc.nasa.gov/frontmenu_dsp.cfm to verify that this is the correct version prior to use.

Use or disclosure of data contained on this page is subject to the restriction(s) on the title page of this document.

Document Number Revision Document Title GPR 7120.4 August 9, Goddard Procedural Requirements: Risk Management

GSFC-STD-1001 October 1, 2009, revalidated on April 1, Goddard Technical Standard: Criteria for Flight Project Critical Milestone Reviews

* See Contract's Applicable Documents List for the current revision

1.2 Overview

1.2.1 Top-Level Summary of Work Required

The details of the deliverables are described in later sections. At the top level, the Government requires:

a) An Instrument Design that satisfies the baseline requirements defined in the PSD, and IMAR, as specified in section 2.2.

Enhancements to the design beyond the baseline requirements are encouraged if they can be implemented on the specified delivery timeline. Aspirational requirements that the Government will consider, and the associated details, are documented in the PSD, Section 4. The Contractor shall determine which, if any, of these aspirational requirements to include in their design and meet the specified delivery timeline.

b) An Assessment of Instrument performance against requirements specified in the PSD and IMAR including any applicable aspirational requirements

c) Trade studies as specified in section 2.1

d) Technical analysis as described in section 2.2

e) Technology Readiness Level (TRL) Assessment and a Technology Development Plan as described in section 2.3.1

f) Identification of hardware and software heritage assumptions as defined in section 2.3.2

g) Identification of Development Risks as defined in section 2.4.1

h) Notional development schedule as described in section 2.4.2

i) Cost analysis as described in section 2.4.3

j) As applicable, performance of Technology Development and/or Risk Mitigation effort(s)

1.2.2 Guiding Assumptions About the Eventual Flight Program

The Flight hardware development cost and schedule estimates shall be based on the following assumptions:

a) 1 Engineering Test Unit (ETU), to be completed, tested, and verified No Later Than (NLT) Critical Design Review (CDR), that can make calibrated radiometric

Check the JPSS/LEO MIS Server at https://jpssmis.gsfc.nasa.gov/frontmenu_dsp.cfm to verify that this is the correct version prior to use.

Use or disclosure of data contained on this page is subject to the restriction(s) on the title page of this document.

measurements. This ETU should be fabricated using the same manufacturing processes as the flight instruments.

b) 4 Flight Units plus parts for 5 more flight models to be procured concurrently, with contractual options to build units 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. Deliveries will be as shown in the following schedule (all dates are for the Government Fiscal Year):

Table 2: Initial Delivery Schedule

MILESTONE DATE (assume 1st day of quarter) Flight Contract Award Q1 FY25 Flight Model 1 Pre-Ship Review (PSR1) Q1 FY30 Launch 1 Readiness Date Q1 FY31 Flight Models 2, 3, and 4 PSR (PSR234) Q1 FY32 Launch 2 Readiness Date Q1 FY34 Launch 3 Readiness Date Q1 FY37 Launch 4 Readiness Date Q1 FY40

c) 1 year is needed for post-delivery spacecraft integration and testing support between the Pre-Ship Review (PSR) for each flight model and the Launch Readiness Date for that flight model.

d) No Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) will be provided. If there is specific Government owned equipment which the contractor is proposing to utilize, then this equipment shall be specifically identified, along with the benefit and verification of availability.

e) Instrument Class: C (as defined in NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 8705.4)

f) Mission durations: 5 year on-orbit mission life after 10 year on-ground storage after instrument delivery

g) The following instrument-level reviews will be held for the first flight build: System

Requirements Review (SRR), Integrated Baseline Review (IBR), Preliminary Design Review (PDR), Critical Design Review (CDR), Pre-Environmental Review (PER), Pre-Shipment Review (PSR). Subsequent flight builds will hold a PER and PSR.

Review pre-requisites, content, and success criteria are documented in NPR 7123.1.

Check the JPSS/LEO MIS Server at https://jpssmis.gsfc.nasa.gov/frontmenu_dsp.cfm to verify that this is the correct version prior to use.

Use or disclosure of data contained on this page is subject to the restriction(s) on the title page of this document.

2 TASKS

The Contractor shall analyze the Instrument requirements, perform trade studies to justify design decisions, develop a conceptual design for the SMBA, and perform all other tasks as specified below.

2.1 Trade Studies

The Contractor shall perform the following trade studies:

a) Schedule Trade Study: The Contractor shall conduct a trade study examining delivery schedules for a total of 9 flight instruments and 1 ETU. The study shall consider concurrent development, fabrication, delivery, storage of multiple instruments, and any other factors that the contractor deems relevant. The Contractor shall provide

1. A suggested number of delivery batches.

2. A suggested number of units to be delivered per batch.

3. A suggested design change cadence (including a discussion of which new technology to infuse and when to infuse it).

4. An earliest possible delivery date for each of the flight instruments.

5. A discussion of the feasibility of the ETU delivery schedule described in Section

1.2.2.a.

6. A discussion of the feasibility of the flight instrument delivery schedule described in Section 1.2.2.b and Section 2.4.2.1.

The Contractor shall clearly document the cost, schedule, and technical risk associated with each option, document the affects to on ground storage requirements associated with each option, and make a recommendation on the best balance of cost and technical risk as a function of Delivery Date. The results of the trade shall be captured in a Recommended Delivery Schedule and Philosophy document.

b) Producibility Trade Study: The Contractor shall conduct a trade study examining the instrument design for producibility versus design for maximum performance. The contractor shall clearly document the cost, schedule, and technical risk associated with each option, and make a recommendation on the design option that best balances producibility and performance.

c) Radio Frequency Interference (RFI) Detection Study: The Contractor shall conduct a trade study of incorporating RFI detection (defined as identifying contaminated observations) capability into the design. The Contractor shall predict performance against the following areas:

1. Frequencies that would incorporate RFI detection capability, including non-science channels.

2. Allocation of data processing between onboard the instrument versus on the ground.

Check the JPSS/LEO MIS Server at https://jpssmis.gsfc.nasa.gov/frontmenu_dsp.cfm to verify that this is the correct version prior to use.

Use or disclosure of data contained on this page is subject to the restriction(s) on the title page of this document.

3. Data volume generated and data rate needed.

4. RFI detection performance: The contractor shall determine how RFI detection performance is specified and describe the reasoning for this specification method.

Example metrics include, but are not limited to, magnitude in kelvins and/or probability of detection.

5. Technology implementation options (such as, but not limited to, Field Programmable Gate Arrays, Application-Specific Integrated Circuits), and capabilities such as on-orbit re-programmability.

6. Which RFI detection algorithms should be utilized. Examples include, but are not limited to, time domain techniques, frequency spectrum techniques, and statistical techniques.

7. Potential for RFI mitigation, defined as correcting contaminated observations to the degree of which is considered feasible before the delivery of the initial flight instruments.

8. Scalability to other currently undefined or underdefined types of RFI (such as 6G or 7G RFI).

A description of any necessary technology and additional related studies shall be given along with a technology readiness assessment and any relevant heritage. Associated cost, schedule, and technical risks shall be defined.

d) Hyperspectral Study: The Contractor shall conduct a trade study of incorporating hyperspectral capability into the design. The Contractor shall predict performance against the following areas:

1. Frequencies to incorporate hyperspectral capability (or increased configuration of channels, even if not considered hyperspectral). Where incorporated, trade the number of channels vs. retrieval performance improvement.

2. Allocation of data processing between onboard the instrument versus on the ground.

3. Data volume generated and data rate needed.

4. Technology implementation options (such as, but not limited to, Field

Programmable Gate Arrays, Application-Specific Integrated Circuits), and capabilities such as on-orbit re-programmability.

5. Simultaneous incorporation of RFI detection and hyperspectral capabilities.

A description of any necessary technology and additional related studies shall be given along with a technology readiness assessment and any relevant heritage. Associated cost, schedule, and technical risks shall be defined.

e) PSD Aspirational Requirements Study: The Contractor may choose to augment the baseline Instrument with any of the aspirational requirements listed in the PSD. If the Contractor chooses to implement any of the aspirational requirements, the Contractor shall document the associated cost, schedule, and risk weighed against predicted

Check the JPSS/LEO MIS Server at https://jpssmis.gsfc.nasa.gov/frontmenu_dsp.cfm to verify that this is the correct version prior to use.

Use or disclosure of data contained on this page is subject to the restriction(s) on the title page of this document.

performance associated with each aspirational requirement beyond the baseline requirements.

2.2 SMBA Design Concept Development and Related Analyses

2.2.1 SMBA Design

The Contractor shall develop a SMBA design concept and perform associated engineering analyses to justify design parameters, tolerances, and design/performance margins. The design concept and associated engineering analyses shall include (but are not limited to) a description of:

a) Which scan method (such as conical or cross track) the Contractor has chosen. This includes suggesting requirements associated with this method to be incorporated into the

PSD.

b) A defined calibration methodology for the SMBA instrument (both pre-launch and on-orbit) and provide the associated radiometric error budget for each (pre-launch and on-orbit). This calibration methodology includes strategies for inter-calibration (as defined by the National Institute of Standards and Technology) of the SMBA with Joint Polar Satellite System Advanced Technology Microwave Sounder units and other operational sounders in the same timeframe.

c) A Command and Data Handling methodology for the SMBA and provide the associated data rate calculations. This includes identifying which information to downlink. If the amount of critical information exceeds downlink capacity, this includes identifying alternative methods for obtaining this information.

d) The algorithm to be used for the SMBA to meet beam pointing knowledge, accuracy, and geolocation requirements in the PSD, section 5.

e) Any methods used for improving the horizontal spatial resolution (beyond the baseline requirement).

f) The spatial sampling and resampling methods (such as, but not limited to, nearest neighbor, inverse distance (squared), and/or Backus-Gilbert) used.

g) The striping reduction approach.

h) The inter-channel noise correlation approach.

i) A concept of operations.

j) Block diagrams that depict system interfaces with external supporting systems, as well as internal interfaces between independent system elements.

k) A visual depiction of top-level geometry choices.

l) Completed modeling and analyses results as required to illustrate that science objectives will be achieved.

2.2.2 Predicted Performance vs. PSD

The Contractor shall provide a quantitative comparison of the SMBA performance against the performance requirements in sections 4 and 5 of the PSD. The contractor shall describe how the design, development, integration, and/or testing will meet each requirement. The Contractor shall quantify potential cost, schedule, and risk impacts of any differences between SMBA performance and the baseline requirements.

Check the JPSS/LEO MIS Server at https://jpssmis.gsfc.nasa.gov/frontmenu_dsp.cfm to verify that this is the correct version prior to use.

Use or disclosure of data contained on this page is subject to the restriction(s) on the title page of this document.

2.2.3 PSD and IMAR Compliance

The Contractor shall provide a summary of compliance to the PSD and IMAR requirements, including initial engineering analyses showing compliance to environmental requirements. The contractor shall describe how the design, development, integration, and/or testing will meet each requirement. The Contractor shall quantify potential cost, schedule, and risk impacts of any differences SMBA performance and the baseline requirements.

2.2.4 Suggested Values for TBRs, TBSs, and TBDs

The Contractor shall review all PSD and IMAR requirements listed as "TBR,” “TBS,” or “TBD” and either concur or suggest new requirement values. The Contractor may also make suggestions (including addition and deletion) on any PSD or IMAR requirement not listed as TBR,” “TBS,” or “TBD.” The Contractor shall quantify potential cost, schedule, and risk impacts of any suggested requirements changes.

2.2.5 Reliability Approach

The Contractor shall describe a reliability approach (planned redundancy, parts selection, etc.) to meet the required lifetime (5 year on-orbit life after 10 year on-ground storage after instrument delivery). The contractor shall perform a reliability assessment done on the proposed architecture and develop a targeted Ps for the mission.

2.2.6 Single Point Failures and Fault Critical Elements

The Contractor shall identify all single-point failures and fault-critical elements in a Failure Modes Effects and Criticality Analysis (FMECA). As part of this analysis the Contractor shall describe the fault tolerant/graceful degradation features of the design.

2.2.7 Master Equipment List (MEL)

The Contractor shall develop a Master Equipment List (MEL). The MEL shall document the mass, power, TRL of each major sub-component, and any other information specified in the MEL template provided by the government.

2.2.8 Modeling and Simulation Tool Description

The Contractor shall provide descriptions of any simulation and analytical tools used in the assessment of the design and/or performance, including the heritage and validation of the tools.

2.3 Technology Assessment and Demonstration

2.3.1 Technology Development Plan

The Contractor shall assess the technology readiness and any relevant heritage of all components of the instrument design. The Contractor shall provide a detailed Technology Development Plan (TDP), including a schedule, explaining how all technologies will achieve TRL 6 demonstration by the instrument PDR. Associated cost, schedule, and technical risks shall be defined. If the

Check the JPSS/LEO MIS Server at https://jpssmis.gsfc.nasa.gov/frontmenu_dsp.cfm to verify that this is the correct version prior to use.

Use or disclosure of data contained on this page is subject to the restriction(s) on the title page of this document.

study effort includes Technology Development effort, the TDP and associated schedule shall clearly identify all of the work covered by the Technology Development. Demonstration should be done via hardware demonstration such as with the ETU.

2.3.1.1 Technology Development Effort (if applicable)

If the study effort includes a Technology Development effort, the Contractor shall implement the Technology Development effort, brief the status of this effort at the reviews described in section 3 and provide a final report detailing the work done, any associated results, and the level to which the technology has been developed.

2.3.2 Heritage Assessment

The Contractor shall document the flight hardware and software heritage and document any relevant differences between the claimed heritage and the proposed design (for example, on-orbit environment, mission duration, requirements, etc.).

2.3.3 ETU Philosophy and Plan

The Contractor shall describe how it will implement the ETU described in Section 1.2.2.a, in an ETU Philosophy and Plan document. This plan shall include a discussion of how the ETU will be completed, tested, and verified NLT CDR as well as any planned differences in performance, design, and manufacturing processes between the ETU and the flight instruments. This plan shall also discuss cost, schedule, and technical risks associated with the Contractor’s ETU approach.

2.4 Management Planning

2.4.1 Risk Assessment

The Contractor shall identify and rank risks to the development of the SMBA and describe associated mitigations. The likelihood and criticality of risks shall be ranked on a 5x5 matrix per Goddard Procedural Requirements (GPR) 7120.4D. The Contractor shall identify alternate implementation paths for all high-risk items.

2.4.1.1 Risk Mitigation Effort (if applicable)

If the study effort includes a Risk Mitigation effort, the Contractor shall implement the Risk Mitigation effort, brief the status of this effort at the reviews described in section 3 and provide a final report detailing the work completed, associated results, and the level to which the risk has been mitigated.

2.4.2 Flight Implementation Schedule

The Contractor shall develop a suggested implementation phase schedule. The Contractor shall assume that the parts for all 9 flight instruments and 1 ETU will be procured at the same time.

The schedule shall show the following major instrument reviews: SRR, IBR, PDR, CDR, MRRs, TRRs, PER, PSR, peer reviews, achievement of TRL6, development of the instrument physical model(s) (ETU for example), long-lead (> 1 year) procurements, and primary and secondary

Check the JPSS/LEO MIS Server at https://jpssmis.gsfc.nasa.gov/frontmenu_dsp.cfm to verify that this is the correct version prior to use.

Use or disclosure of data contained on this page is subject to the restriction(s) on the title page of this document.

critical paths. The schedule shall identify any flight hardware procurements that are started ahead of the completion of the ETU (or equivalent). The schedule is required to meet the program level milestones shown in 1.2.2.b.

2.4.2.1 Suggested F5 – F9 Dates

The Contractor shall suggest dates for the F5 – F9 instrument contract option starts, instrument delivery, and material procurement milestones that will minimize the overall cost, while also minimizing the development risk to F1, F2, F3, and F4. The nominal launch readiness dates (LRD) and instrument no-later-than need dates are as follows:

Table 3: Follow-On Delivery Schedule

Mission Instrument Need Date (NLT, Gov. FY) LRD (Gov. FY)

F5 Q1 FY35 Q3 FY38

F6 Q1 FY36 Q3 FY41

F7 Q1 FY36 Q1 FY43

F8 Q1 FY36 Q3 FY44

F9 Q1 FY36 Q1 FY46

The recommended contract start and delivery dates shall be used in the cost modeling.

2.4.3 Flight Cost Estimate

The Contractor shall provide a parametric cost estimate for the development and production of four flight model instruments and the ETU recommended in the ETU Philosophy and Plan (see section 2.3.3). The costs shall be separately identified for each model, flight unit, required GSE (ground support equipment), and technology development(s). The costs shall be shown phased by Government fiscal year. The Contractor shall state what parametric model was used in the analysis and provide any inputs to the model beyond the MEL (reference 2.2.10). The Contractor shall describe the heritage of the model.

Check the JPSS/LEO MIS Server at https://jpssmis.gsfc.nasa.gov/frontmenu_dsp.cfm to verify that this is the correct version prior to use.

Use or disclosure of data contained on this page is subject to the restriction(s) on the title page of this document.

3 REVIEWS, REPORTING, AND DELIVERABLE PRODUCTS

The Contractor shall perform the reviews and reporting tasks and provide deliverable products as specified below. The Contracting Officer's written determination that Government requests for action (RFA's) or requests for information regarding the deliverable reviews and products have been closed out will constitute acceptance of the deliverable.

3.1 Status Meetings and Reviews

3.1.1 Kickoff Meeting

The Contractor shall support a kickoff meeting within 2 weeks of the Authorization to Proceed to provide a team introduction, summary of the proposed work for the study, and a high-level introduction to the initial SMBA design concept. The Contractor shall plan for a 2-hour virtual meeting. The Contractor shall deliver a soft copy of the Kickoff chart set 24 hours prior to the meeting.

3.1.2 Monthly Progress Review (MPR)

The Contractor shall present the results of the work performed since the previous MPR and discuss relevant technical and programmatic issues and findings. The topics expected to be covered are listed in the Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) table in section 3.1.6. The MPRs shall be planned as 4-hour virtual meetings. The Contractor shall deliver a soft copy of the MPR chart set 24 hours prior to the meeting.

3.1.3 Midterm Review (MTR)

This review will be held at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, pending travel restrictions.

The Contractor shall plan on a one-and-a-half-day review to occur six months after Authorization to Proceed. The topics expected to be covered are listed in the CDRLs table in section 3.1.6. The MTR should be a preliminary draft of the FSR. The Contractor shall deliver a soft copy of the MTR chart set 72 hours prior to the meeting.

3.1.4 Final Study Review (FSR)

The Contractor shall plan on a one-and-a-half-day review to occur 11 months and two weeks after Authorization to Proceed at the Contractor’s facility. If possible, the Government will travel to attend the review in-person, pending travel restrictions. The topics expected to be covered are listed in the CDRLs table in section 3.1.6. The Contractor shall prepare an agenda for the FSR no later than two weeks prior to the meeting for the Government to review, amend, and approve.

The Contractor should reference the requirements in NASA GSFC-STD-1001A, Criteria for Flight Project Critical Milestone Reviews, for an Instrument System Requirements Review (SRR) and System Definition Review (SDR) when creating the agenda. Any suggested tailoring to the SRR/SDR requirements should be noted. The Contractor shall deliver a soft copy of the FSR chart set 72 hours prior to the meeting.

Check the JPSS/LEO MIS Server at https://jpssmis.gsfc.nasa.gov/frontmenu_dsp.cfm to verify that this is the correct version prior to use.

Use or disclosure of data contained on this page is subject to the restriction(s) on the title page of this document.

3.1.5 Final Report Package (FRP)

Any CDRLs that were not delivered and approved by the Government Contracting Officer (CO) prior to the FSR or any CDRLs requiring updates shall be submitted in the Final Report Package.

Also, any open action items remaining after the FSR shall be addressed in the Final Report Package. The FRP is due 2 weeks after the FSR. This may include annotated final (i.e.: as presented with actions incorporated) FSR charts.

3.1.6 Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL)

The Contractor shall deliver the data products specified in the following table. Documents in this table are subject to evaluation by the Government or its designated representatives to determine Contractor effectiveness in meeting contract objectives. The contractor shall incorporate updates requested by the Government as specified by the Contracting Officer. Upon submission, the Contractor may proceed with associated work while the Government reviews the submission.

Table 4: CDRLs

ID Deliverable/Task Update Schedule SOW Ref 1 Schedule Trade Study Status update at MPRs, Initial Delivery at MPR 4, Final Delivery at MTR

2.1.a

2 Producibility Trade Study Status update at MPRs, Initial Delivery at MPR 4, Final Delivery at MTR

2.1.b

3 Radio Frequency Interference Detection Study

Status update at MPRs, Initial Delivery at MTR, Final Delivery at MPR 9

2.1.c

4 Hyperspectral Study Status update at MPRs, Initial Delivery at MTR, Final Delivery at MPR 9

2.1.d

5 PSD Aspirational Requirements Study

Status update at MPRs, Initial Delivery at MTR, Final Delivery at MPR 9

2.1.e

6 SMBA Design Status update at MPRs, Initial Delivery at MTR, Final Delivery at MPR 11

2.2.1

7 Predicted performance vs. PSD Status update at MPRs, Initial Delivery at MTR, Final Delivery at MPR 11

2.2.2

8 PSD and IMAR Compliance Status update at MPRs, Initial Delivery at MTR, Final Delivery at FSR

2.2.3

9 Suggested values for TBRs, TBSs, and TBDs

Status update at MPRs, Initial Delivery at MTR, Final Delivery at MPR 11

2.2.4

10 Reliability Approach Status update at MPRs, Initial Delivery at MPR 4, Final Delivery at MTR

2.2.5

11 Single-Point Failures & Fault Critical Elements

Status update at MPRs, Initial Delivery at MTR, Final Delivery at MPR 11

2.2.6

12 MEL Status update at MPRs, 2.2.7

Check the JPSS/LEO MIS Server at https://jpssmis.gsfc.nasa.gov/frontmenu_dsp.cfm to verify that this is the correct version prior to use.

Use or disclosure of data contained on this page is subject to the restriction(s) on the title page of this document.

ID Deliverable/Task Update Schedule SOW Ref Initial Delivery at MPR 4, Final Delivery at MPR 11

13 Modeling and Simulation Tool Description

Status update at MPRs, Initial Delivery at MTR, Final Delivery in FSR

2.2.8

14 Technology Development Plan Status update at MPRs, Initial Delivery at MPR 4, Final Delivery at MTR

2.3.1

15 Technology Development Effort (if applicable)

Status update at MPRs, Initial Delivery at MTR, Final Delivery in FSR

2.3.1.1

16 Heritage Assessment Status update at MPRs, Initial Delivery at MTR, Final Delivery in FSR

2.3.2

17 ETU Philosophy and Plan Status update at MPRs, Initial Delivery at MTR, Final Delivery in MPR 11

2.3.3

18 Risk Assessment Status update at MPRs, Initial Delivery at MPR 4, Final Delivery at MTR

2.4.1

19 Risk Mitigation Effort (if applicable)

Status update at MPRs, Initial Delivery at MTR, Final Delivery in FSR

2.4.1.1

20 Flight Implementation Schedule Status update at MPRs, Initial Delivery at MPR 4, Final Delivery at MPR 11

2.4.2

21 Suggested F5 – F9 dates Status update at MPRs, Initial Delivery at MPR 4, Final Delivery at MTR

2.4.2.1

22 Flight Cost Estimate Status update at MPRs, Initial Delivery at MPR 4, Final Delivery at MPR 11

2.4.3

23 Kickoff Meeting Charts due 24 hours before 3.1.1 24 MPR Charts Charts due 24 hours before, MPR will not be held in the same months that Kickoff, MTR, and

FSR are held

3.1.2

25 MTR Charts Charts due 72 hours before 3.1.3 26 FSR Charts Charts due 72 hours before 3.1.4 27 FRP Charts Charts due two weeks after FSR 3.1.5

Check the JPSS/LEO MIS Server at https://jpssmis.gsfc.nasa.gov/frontmenu_dsp.cfm to verify that this is the correct version prior to use.

Use or disclosure of data contained on this page is subject to the restriction(s) on the title page of this document.

Appendix A Acronyms

CDR Critical Design Review CDRL Contract Data Requirement List EDU Engineering Development Unit FRP Final Report Package FSR Final Study Review FY Fiscal Year GFE Government Furnished Equipment GPR Goddard Procedural Requirement GSE Ground Support Equipment NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NPR NASA Procedural Requirements IBR Integrated Baseline Review IMAR Instrument Mission Assurance Requirements LEO Low Earth Orbit LRD Launch Readiness Date MEL Master Equipment List MPR Monthly Progress Review MRR Manufacturing Readiness Review MTR Mid-Term Review NEdT Noise Equivalent Delta Temperature NEON Near Earth Orbit Network NLT No Later Than PDR Preliminary Design Review PER Pre-Environmental Review PSD Performance Specification Document PSR Pre-Shipment Review RFA Request for Action RFI Request for Information SMBA Sounder for Microwave-Based Applications SOW Statement of Work SRR System Requirements Review TBD To Be Determined TBR To Be Resolved TBS To Be Supplied TDP Technology Development Plan TRL Technology Readiness Level TRR Test Readiness Review

2.4.3 Flight Cost Estimate