3D Winds Q and A_SAM.Gov_FINAL.pdf

BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT (BAA): 3D Winds

Questions & Answers (Q&A) # Questions Received Government Response

The award amount is listed as $4M for the two year project; $3M for Objective A and $1M for Objective B.

Does this mean $4M for each awardee within the specified objective (A or B) or in total? i.e. Two awardees for objective A would split $4M over 2 years OR each awardee receives $4 for the 2 year time span.

There is $4M available to fund the combined total of all selected white papers across both Objectives. After Community Day and 1:1 session feedback, the Government team has decided to update the BAA to remove the reserve of $3M for Objective A and $1M for Objective B.

Regarding Objective A: is this solely for instrumentation and not platforms or would a new platform technology be considered?

The platform is not the primary objective. We are interested in exploring the different observing systems technologies that can measure 3Dwinds and facilitating the deployment to collect data so we can assess these in terms of quality and impact on the NOAA systems. If there are platforms that could help in this endeavor, it would be interesting to hear about them, but we recommend this be put in the context of the objectives above.

Again, regarding Objective A: is a proof-of-concept is enough? i.e. do we need to show data collected from a fully functioning instrument/platform to high altitudes or can we demonstrate the instrumentation on platform that flies to a lower altitude with a proof of concept for high altitude operations?

We would like to hear from concepts that can be deployed in a range of altitudes. While preference is for higher altitudes for reasons related to the ability to measure winds at different altitudes, we are not opposed to concepts that call for deployment at lower altitudes.

Potential offerors should however be aware that the white paper evaluation will account for the ability of the observing systems to measure (and assess) atmospheric wind vertical distribution.

On page 5 it states NEDSIS envisions 1-3 awards for both objectives under this BAA. To clarify, does this mean 1-3 per Objective or 1-3 for both objectives combined?

The Government intends to award 1-3 studies for both objectives combined. This section of the BAA has been revised to provide a clearer explanation.

On page 9, it states “Additionally, a cost profile, year-by-year in constant year dollars, is required.” Please confirm if the cost profile and year-by-year dollars is to be included in the white paper or reserved for the full proposal. If a cost profile is required for the white paper, please confirm this is to be provide-d by Government Fiscal Year.

The white paper must include the total estimated price to conduct the BAA study. For submissions in response to Objective B, it is preferred that a rough order of magnitude (ROM) cost for the expected concept (providing all of the different attributes listed in Section C) be provided, if available. A detailed cost profile by year for the expected concept would be provided if an offeror were selected to move to Stage 2 of the BAA process and provide a full proposal in response to Objective B. Cost profiles should be provided by Government Fiscal Year.

On page 9, item 3 it states that “reference datasets can be obtained from existing sources and their deployment is not expected to be part of the project here.”

a) This data is also listed as a CDRL. Confirm the intent of the CDRL is to clearly identify what government data was used in the assessment.

b) Should it be assumed that this in-situ data is readily available to non-government contractors or it will be made available through the government team?

c) Is there any planned coordination of a field campaign to ensure sufficient in-situ measurement density?

d) Please clarify if the government expects the offeror to include aircraft costs in the scope of effort.

a) Yes, that was the intent.

b) Some readily available in-situ data (used for validation purposes for other Government projects) will be pointed to by the Government team. The offeror should also feel free to identify and use other in-situ data if it sees this is necessary.

c) At this stage, no, but it is not out of the question.

d) Yes, the Government expects the offeror to provide the total cost of the effort, including aircraft costs.

On Page 7 it states “studies could include concept designs aiming at the maturation of certain sensor components.”

Please clarify the intent of this statement.

It is assumed that there may be some existing 3D Wind platforms and sensors that may only need to be modified slightly or matured.

8 Table 2: Is Horizontal resolution a foot print or sampling density?

It is meant as footprint size. That being said, it is acknowledged that sampling density can modulate the footprint size through resolution enhancement techniques.

The offeror should feel free to optimize the footprint size and/or the sampling density.

Table 2: Can the government provide additional details on how the Table 2 parameters were derived? Are there existing OSSEs or other analyses that can be shared?

The Table 2 on trade ranges for 3D Winds was derived using a collection of NOAA information and feedback from Government experts. No OSSEs were used to derive these ranges.

"Will NOAA consider providing an aircraft or balloon platform to support demonstration testing to ensure cost savings to the Government?

• If yes, will you update the RFI to reflect that approach?

• If not, what costs must the contractor assume and include in our white paper response to complete the flight campaign?"

NOAA will not consider providing any support that puts it in critical path for execution. The offeror should plan for that support as part of their white paper and any subsequent proposal, if requested.

If any future efforts are funded, will funding come solely from Joint Venture, or a mix of Joint Venture and other sources (ie. NASA or DoD)?

This is uncertain at this time. While partnering with other agencies is not out of the question, there are not currently any plans to do so.

Regarding data collection for a "long enough period of time to allow for a proper assessment of the quality and potential usefulness of the data" - does this imply a single airborne flight, or a month of balloon observations?

This is entirely dependent upon what the offeror feels it needs.

Regarding the ongoing and needed work to bring components to an operational maturation level by 2030- 2050, does NOAA envision pre-operational on-orbit demonstration efforts prior to that time?

That is uncertain at this time, and will be taken into consideration given the results of these BAA studies and the risk of going to space-based operational implementation.

Objective B, page 9 mentions a Technical Data Package, TDP, (bottom of page 9) and a Concept Report as part of a Final Report (top of page 10). Details of the TDP are provided for Objective A (task 4), but not for Objective B.

What is expected in the TDP for Objective B, and how does this differ from the concept report?

NOAA expects the Concept Report will provide the overall final output of the Objectives. The TDP for Objective B would have the same content as that for Objective A, except the platforms referenced would be from an operational perspective.

Bottom of page 9 reads, "The Offeror shall identify the estimate of the cost expected of the concept and the Technical data package. Additionally, a cost profile, year-by-year in constant dollars, is required." Can you clarify whether this cost estimate (for a future concept and year by year info) is to be developed in the study, or if NOAA expects it to be provided in the white paper? Similarly are the tasks described in sentences 2, 3, and 4 of page 10 intended to be done as part of the study? Or provided as part of the white paper?

The white paper must include the total estimated price to conduct the BAA study. For submissions in response to Objective B, it is preferred that a rough order of magnitude (ROM) cost for the expected concept (providing all of the different attributes listed in Section C) be provided, if available. A detailed cost profile by year for the expected concept would be provided if an offeror were selected to move to Stage 2 of the BAA process and provide a full proposal in response to Objective B. Cost profiles should be provided by Government Fiscal Year. Questions 2, 3, & 4 should be addressed as part of the Proposal and the study.

With the understanding that no mission is planned and future study proposals/awards are depending on funding availability, does NOAA have an approximate timeline for responses to the white papers and/or potential requests for proposals?

White papers in response to this BAA will be due on June 7, 2022. Please refer to the updated Community Day slide deck included in the Amendment 3 posting for a more detailed anticipated timeline.

How does NOAA plan to use field campaign data to assess how the technologies might satisfy NOAA needs? Would NOAA perform data assimilation? Scaling to space-based operation?

NOAA plans to undertake a number of quality and impact assessment activities. This might include comparison to NWP fields and NWP data assimilation experiments.

I would like to get clarification regarding Government Eligibility for the 3D Winds BAA. The impression is there’s a preference for a commercial procurement, and I wanted to clarify any issues or concerns if another agency responds to the call. The statement from Eligible Offerors requires a government entity to “provide written documentation citing the specific statutory authority establishing ability to propose to government solicitations.” Is NOAA looking for an IAA or SAA?

The language you've referenced is included to ensure that any government entities submitting white papers are providing adequate documentation to demonstrate that they are not taking business opportunities away from the private sector. Under the "Award Information" section on pg.5 of the BAA, NOAA states that interagency agreements may be executed as a result of the BAA, as appropriate.

For objective B, are you looking for studies of specific (individual 3D winds concepts), or comparative studies of several different 3D winds measurement techniques?

Both are within the scope of the BAA. We want to assess the best option to meet NOAA’s needs. This could be either individual studies or comparative studies of different concepts.

For objective A, is it assumed that the wind instrument provider also provides the aircraft used to collect the measurements, i.e. a NASA or private sector/university aircraft? Or are we expected to integrate on a NOAA aircraft like the P-3?

There is no expectation that NOAA aircraft will be used.

The offeror needs to coordinate and fund both the sensor and the suborbital platform to collect the data.

You mention desire to leverage previous government investments, but the words in the BAA about other government agency involvement are a bit confusing. If researchers from another government agency developed a unique instrument, then would they be permitted to submit?

As listed in the BAA page 4, there are limitations on when the government can submit a BAA response. If the government meets the limitations, they can submit. There are technologies that have benefited from previous government investments, and this BAA can be used to advance these technologies to further NOAA’s needs.

Is it possible to submit a paper for Objective B that offers a more advanced solution to the proven instrument from Objective A?

Yes. Objective B should aim to provide the optimal solution even if it’s not already proven.

What is meant by "currently existing technology?” Does this mean specific hardware or general measurement concept that is currently in operation?

Assuming this question is related to Objective A, we know there are different approaches at different levels of development. Our goal is to assess how well these technologies meet NOAA’s needs.

For Objective B, can you confirm whether you are looking for forecast OSSEs, or for uncertainty quantification and/or sampling studies?

The purpose of Objective B is to have the offerors develop concepts to be used for 3D winds. As part of this Objective, we want to know the expected performance and cost of these concepts (see table 2 in the BAA for the range of performances).

For Objective B that is built on the proven tech from Objective A, should we stick to submitting only in one category or would we do both objectives?

You can submit separate white papers for one or both objectives. Please reference “3. White Paper Guidelines” on BAA pg. 14 for additional clarity on this question.

26 For end-item cost estimate of Objective B, does that include launch vehicle and Bus or just the sensor?

We want to understand the cost to implement the concept, so the cost estimate should include all items needed.

27 Can you clarify if you meant the budget for both objectives is a total of $4M or is there $4 million per objective?

The total budget is $4M for both objectives. This is the total budget covering performance of up to two years.

28 How many concepts does NOAA expect to select for funding in objectives A and B?

We expect to select one or more, but the number depends on what is submitted and the cost. It could be zero, or it could be many.

So assuming if you're submitting white papers for both objectives you are in the running for two separate invitations to proposal and two separate possible contract awards.

Yes

Let's say you have an instrument and mission concept that builds upon an airborne instrument that is currently flying, is NOAA interested in instruments that will simply space qualify that concept?

If that is the concept you think will meet the performance needs in Table 2, then we will consider it.

31 Does NOAA expect to commit staff to assimilate/analyze the data collected from the suborbital platforms?

Supporting the BAA will be a Government Team helping provide guidance on a regular basis. We are also setting up a tactical team that will provide technical support and will help the government independently assess the value of the data to the NOAA systems. The offeror is however expected to also undertake quality assessment of the data.

32 Can you clarify if it is $4M max per funded study or $4M split among accepted proposals?

It’s $4M for all awards. This is the total budget covering up to two years. This section of the BAA has been revised to provide a clearer explanation.

33 Will NOAA want raw instrument data, processed data, or both? Both

34 Is there an expected percentage of RFPs directed to just small businesses?

There is no small business set aside. The BAA is used to assess the state-of-the art technology and therefore we don’t want to stifle ideas. However, we are very supportive of small businesses and want to consider technologies that small businesses are developing.

Can you explain how small business can respond to Objective B without teaming with an Objective A respondent?

Objective B is independent of Objective A. The Objective B study should consider the best option(s) that meets the Table 2 parameters, not just a technology from Objective A.

NASA is starting to consider team diversity in proposals.

Does NOAA have any plans to take into account diversity in these papers/proposals?

We wanted to leave this BAA broad so we can select the best possible solutions. Therefore, we did not want to limit it to teaming requirements.

37 Who will own the data after the project?

The Government will own the data and we can provide a non-exclusive right to the data back to the Offeror. If desired, the Offerors can propose something different in the White Paper.

38 For Objective A - how many observations and duration is NOAA expected?

In the BAA Objective A there is a reference to a long-enough period of time to perform adequate assessment.

NOAA is open to what offerors can provide in terms of the length of the period of measurements, for a given cost.

And therefore, no hard constraint on a minimum length of time is provided in the BAA. Similarly, NOAA is open to what the offeror(s) can provide in terms of vertical coverage of the measurements resulting from the objective A project(s).

39 Does NOAA really expect all the parameters in Table 2?

For Objective A, we recognize that only a subset of parameters in Table 2 can be addressed based on the suborbital method. For Objective B, all parameters in Table 2 should be addressed/informed in the proposed concept.

40 Will NOAA provide the flight platform for Objective A? No. The Offeror needs to provide and coordinate all the needs for this project.

Should we assume the plan is that the concept developed in Objective B will ultimately be flown in a low orbit satellite?

You may offer whatever you think is best to meet the Table 2 performance, and that includes both sensor technology as well as platform choices (which is not limited to not just low orbit platforms). We are looking for the best and most cost effective way to meet these performance ranges. Since the NESDIS mission is to provide observations from space in general, not just LEO, the concept can be in any orbit(s) or platform type as long as the performance in Table 2 is met.

42 Are you looking for technology focus or science focus for Objective B?

Both. We are looking for recommendations of what technologies will meet the requirements in Table 2 and the associated cost.

43 What level of support will the Government give for validation of the field campaign data?

We plan to compare the Offeror’s field data against reference data sets and feed it into NWP for an impact assessment. The vendor needs to do an initial assessment of the data before sending it to us.

What level of detail and accuracy regarding the Offeror’s cost is needed in the Stage 1 White Paper vs if selected for the Stage 2 proposal?

The price proposed in the White Paper can be a rough estimate. If an offeror is invited to submit a full proposal as part of Stage 2 of the BAA, NOAA expects the proposed price to be in line with the price stated in the White Paper, and a more detailed price proposal will be required. Please note that if the proposed price is significantly higher than indicated in the white paper, it may negatively impact NOAA’s ability to award that offeror a study contract.

45 How will the BAA be used in the future?

The goal is that we obtain enough information to inform operational design for 3D Winds. The next step could be, but is not limited to, a separate RFP to build the sensor(s).

However, note that the BAA will be exploratory only and currently there is no planned mission to operationally collect 3D winds at this time.

We are preparing a response to this BAA and would like to include some Controlled Unclassified data that illustrates the capability of our solution. Is CUI/CTI allowed in our white paper? This is not classified, but has the following designation: CUI//CTI/EXPT//DIST C

Yes, submission of CUI//CTI/EXPT//DIST C information is permissible, and the NOAA team will handle it in the same manner as any proprietary information submitted by the offeror.

The instructions for the 3D Winds BAA White Paper states that applicable past performance references should be included, and will be excluded from the white paper page count. Our team has a few questions regarding this supporting information:

1) How would NOAA like this information to be formatted?

2) Is there a page limit to the supporting information?

1) Past performance references can be formatted using the same format instructions as the white paper, found in Section 3.1 of the BAA. The BAA has been updated to reflect this.

2) No, past performance information is not included in the page limitation for the white paper, and there is no page limit.

For the BAA, we saw the following text:

"It is required for all prospective offerors and partners from industry, academia, and Government to pre-register for the Virtual Community Day Plenary Sessions. "

Does this mean you have to have pre-registered and attended the Virtual Community Day sessions in order to submit a white paper for consideration?"

No, attendance at the Community Day wasn't a prerequisite for submitting a white paper in response to the BAA. We were trying to ensure that our platform for the virtual community day would be able to support the number of people calling in, which is why we requested people to preregister for the event.

49 Can NOAA staff be Co-I on the proposal? This may present a personal financial conflict of interest.

50 Can we talk to NOAA scientists while preparing our whitepaper?

The offeror should consider whether involving NOAA staff in the formulation of its white paper would create an issue with personal conflicts of interest that could impact its eligibility for award.