DRAFT RFP QandA Compilation (2026.04.08).pdf

ProTech 2.0 Space-Based Environmental Monitoring (SBEM) Domain IDIQ

DRAFT RFP 1305M426R0011

J.4 Questions & Answers Form

Reference Page No. Question/Comment NOAA Response

1 N/A N/A Could you kindly confirm whether this initiative represents a new undertaking, or is there an incumbent currently delivering these services? If an incumbent exists, may we request the relevant details of their contract, including the contract number? This initiative represents a new undertaking.

Draft RFP, Section A 2

Will the Government consider responding direct to proprietary specific questions with appropriate markings? - Rationale: Provides additional clarity in developing a potential proposal response. No, this is not authorized.

3 N/A N/A Does NOAA intend to cover coastal topography bathymetry change products, specifically shoreline erosion and vertical land motion subsidence?

At this time, no. For the initial IDIQ award, NOAA is only considering capabilities that meet the criteria in one or more of the seven Functional Categories listed in the draft SBEM IDIQ SOW. In the future, NOAA may consider other additional SBEM capabilities.

4 N/A N/A Does the government request vendors to only submit their questions using DRAFT J.4 - Questions & Answers Form.xlsx?

NOAA requests that vendors submit their questions using Attachment J.4. However, for the purposes of this draft RFP, using the template is not required.

5 N/A N/A Is the next engagement point the Industry Day scheduled for April 9?

At this time, yes, the next engagement point is the Industry Day scheduled for April 9.

6 N/A N/A Regarding the note that this draft RFP is intended for information and planning purposes, and to allow industry to assess feasibility and provide input, would you recommend sharing feedback during Industry Day, or is there a preferred channel for submitting comments?

Recommend that feedback is submitted via email to the POCs listed in the Draft RFP Notice by 1PM EDT, March 24, 2026.

DRAFT J.1 -

SBEM IDIQ

SOW v4 March6_2026 .pdf 2

In Section C.1, the SOW states that 'NOAA may consider additional SBEM data types for technologies that may, within the IDIQ timeframe, enhance NOAAs mission needs.' Could NOAA clarify if sounding rockets or similar suborbital systems (e.g., providing in-situ ionospheric and upper-atmospheric measurements for satellite data calibration) would qualify as 'additional SBEM data types'? If so, what evaluation criteria would apply to such non-orbital technologies?

No, NOAA NESDIS is only considering space-based assets either operating or planned to operate on-orbit in space (defined as 100 km or higher in altitude).

DRAFT J.1 -

SBEM IDIQ

SOW v4 March6_2026 .pdf 10

For Functional Categories like GNSS-RO and GNSS-R (e.g., pricing tiers based on daily occultations or reflections), how might NOAA adapt the structures for hybrid or complementary data sources, such as those from sounding rockets that provide calibration 'truth data' for satellite products? For example, could per-flight or per-dataset pricing be incorporated for technologies high cadence offerings?

NOAA NESDIS is only considering space-based assets either operating or planned to operate on-orbit in space (defined as 100 km or higher in altitude). There are no plans to incorporate hybrid or complimentary data sources; however, NOAA does support contractors subcontracting for such if needed.

DRAFT J.2 -

IDIQ Price Schedule 1

In the commercial marketplace, data from sounding rockets or similar systems (e.g., for atmospheric profiling) is often priced per mission or subscription-based Data-as-a-Service (DaaS). What suggestions does NOAA have for integrating such models into Attachment J.2 to optimize for cost-effectiveness and innovation?

NOAA NESDIS currently does not find the mission-based or subscription-based business model appropriate. The IDIQ contracting vehicle was determined best suited due to the unknown amount of data required for each Task Order.

DRAFT J.1 -

SBEM IDIQ

SOW v4 March6_2026 .pdf 2

Attachment J.1 (SOW) and J.2 reference data license options (e.g., distribution rights to U.S. government agencies). For additional data types like in-situ ionospheric measurements from sounding rockets, could NOAA provide guidance on preferred licensing models that allow dual-use (commercial + government) while ensuring compliance with FAR and cybersecurity standards (e.g., NIST SP 800-171)?

For space-based assets either operating or planned to operate on-orbit in space (defined as 100 km or higher in altitude), NOAA may consider alternative licensing models, per the SBEM IDIQ SoW section C.3.7.

DATA RIGHTS.

DRAFT J.1 -

SBEM IDIQ

SOW v4 March6_2026 .pdf 2

How does NOAA envision integrating non-satellite data (e.g., GNSS-RO profiles from sounding rockets) into existing workflows, such as NESDIS models for weather forecasting or space weather? Would standards like netCDF/HDF5 and MIL-STD-1553 interfaces suffice for near-real-time delivery?

NOAA NESDIS is only considering space-based assets either operating or planned to operate on-orbit in space (defined as 100 km or higher in altitude).

DRAFT J.1 -

SBEM IDIQ

SOW v4 March6_2026.

pdf 2

In Section C.1, NOAA states it may consider additional SBEM data types for technologies that may, within the IDIQ timeframe, enhance NOAAs mission needs. Could sounding rockets or similar suborbital systems providing high-resolution in-situ measurements of electron density, ion composition, neutral density, winds, temperature, and electric fields in the E-region (~90-150 km) qualify as such additional data types for calibration and validation of GNSS-RO and other satellite products?

No, NOAA NESDIS is only considering space-based assets either operating or planned to operate on-orbit in space (defined as 100 km or higher in altitude).

DRAFT J.1 -

SBEM IDIQ

SOW v4 March6_2026.

pdf 10

Section C.9 defines the Thermospheric Neutral Density Functional Category. Would NOAA be interested in complementary in-situ neutral density, composition, temperature, and wind profiles from sounding rockets in the lower thermosphere (~90-120 km), an altitude range that is challenging for orbital platforms but critical for model validation and satellite drag prediction?

No, NOAA NESDIS is only considering space-based assets either operating or planned to operate on-orbit in space (defined as 100 km or higher in altitude).

DRAFT J.1 -

SBEM IDIQ

SOW v4 March6_2026.

pdf 3

Section C.2 emphasizes complementary technologies for space weather prediction and atmospheric profiling. For sounding rocket payloads carrying simultaneous sensors (e.g., Langmuir/Impedance Probes for electron density/temperature, Retarding Potential Analyzers for ion properties, electric field probes, and neutral wind sensors), how would NOAA envision using these multi-parameter in-situ datasets as truth data to validate or improve GNSS-RO, Microwave Sounder, or Active Sensor products?

NOAA NESDIS is only considering space-based assets either operating or planned to operate on-orbit in space (defined as 100 km or higher in altitude).

DRAFT J.1 -

SBEM IDIQ

SOW v4 March6_2026.

pdf 10

In Section C.1 and C.11 (Additional SBEM Data), NOAA opens the door to novel space-based capabilities. What evaluation criteria or pilot-task-order structure would NOAA apply to sounding-rocket-derived in-situ ionospheric and thermospheric datasets intended to fill observational gaps between orbital satellite passes at mid-latitudes?

NOAA NESDIS is only considering space-based assets either operating or planned to operate on-orbit in space (defined as 100 km or higher in altitude). Therefore, no evaluation criteria exists.

DRAFT J.2 -

IDIQ Price Schedule 1

Commercial sounding-rocket missions for ionospheric/thermospheric in-situ data are typically priced on a per-launch or annual multi-launch subscription (DaaS) basis. For high-frequency campaigns (e.g., 50+ events/year) providing calibration truth data for GNSS-RO and Thermospheric Neutral Density products, what optimizations or additional pricing tiers would NOAA find most useful in Attachment J.2?

NOAA NESDIS is only considering space-based assets either operating or planned to operate on-orbit in space (defined as 100 km or higher in altitude). However, NOAA does support contractors subcontracting for calibration truth data if needed.

DRAFT J.1 -

SBEM IDIQ

SOW v4 March6_2026.

pdf 3

For integration of sounding-rocket in-situ data (e.g., electron/ion density profiles and plasma irregularities from Langmuir probes + RPA) into NESDIS workflows, would standards such as netCDF/HDF5, full ISO 19115 metadata, and near-real-time or post-flight delivery (per C.3.2) suffice for use in space-weather forecasting and model assimilation?

NOAA NESDIS is only considering space-based assets either operating or planned to operate on-orbit in space (defined as 100 km or higher in altitude). Therefore, these standards have not been assessed for other than space-based assets.

DRAFT J.1 -

SBEM IDIQ

SOW v4 March6_2026.

pdf 2

Section C.2 highlights space weather applications and the value of complementary data sources. Given the scarcity of high-cadence mid-latitude in-situ measurements in the E-region and lower thermosphere, could frequent sounding-rocket campaigns (with co-aligned sensors such as Langmuir probes, electric field probes, neutral mass spectrometers, and wind sensors) meaningfully augment NOAAs operational pipeline for ionospheric scintillation, radio propagation, and numerical weather prediction?

It is currently unknown to what extent frequent sounding-rocket campaigns would augment NOAA's operational pipeline as NOAA NESDIS is only considering space-based assets either operating or planned to operate on-orbit in space (defined as 100 km or higher in altitude).

19 N/A N/A Can we get on the IDIQ if there are plans to onramp a capability within the PoP if the technical capability is currently still in development? Onramping will be continuous. You may submit a proposal at any time.

Please review sections L&M of the solicitation for futher detail.

20 L.6.1 Format 63

Subject: Clarification on Technical Volume II Page Limit Application The solicitation indicates that Technical Volume II is limited to eight (8) pages per proposed Functional Category. At the same time, offerors are instructed to describe their ability to meet the requirements outlined in the General Sections of SOW Section C.3, which apply to all offerors regardless of Functional Category.

Could the Government please clarify whether responses addressing the General Section requirements in SOW Section C.3 are expected to be included within the eight-page limit allocated per Functional Category, or if they may be addressed separately from those page limitations? Section C.3. responses should be included in each functional category proposal, as part of that 8-page limit for the Functional Category.

RFP Section I.2 / Clause 1330-52.208- 70 27

Subject: Clarification on AbilityOne Subcontracting Requirements (RFP Section I.2 / Clause 1330-52.208-70)

The current draft of Clause 1330-52.208-70 identifies that a subcontracting plan is required and specifically mandates the inclusion of AbilityOne as a separate goal. Given the highly specialized and technical nature of space-based environmental monitoring (SBEM) and satellite technologies, requiring specific vendor categories at this stage can be overly restrictive for prime contractors who must ensure mission-critical technical precision.

Would the Government consider selecting the alternative version of this clause which states: "A subcontracting plan is not required. The contractor should consider subcontracting with AbilityOne nonprofit organizations to the maximum extent practicable and allowable consistent with other statutory and regulatory requirements applicable to the acquisition"?

This change would allow prime contractors the necessary flexibility to prioritize the rigorous technical requirements of the SOW while still encouraging the use of small business - specifically AbilityOne organizations - where feasible and appropriate

This is a mandatory procedure whether or not a subcontracting plan is required. Please note there are no mandatory contractual requirements to subcontract with AbilityOne. The Government encourages the prime contractor to provide subcontracting opportunities to AbilityOne contractors. The Government will review the Offeror’s proposed plan for using AbilityOne contractors and will consider the extent to which qualified AbilityOne contractors are proposed to perform aspects of the requirement, including work associated with the functional requirements of the SOW. AbilityOne will not be scored for evaluation purposes.

Attachment J.2 N/A

Subject: Clarification on Attachment J.2 Price Schedule Scenarios and Constellation Scaling Regarding Attachment J.2, specifically the pricing worksheets for Functional Categories such as Microwave Sounders (FC 3), the "Scenarios" for Total Evaluated Price (TEP) only provide for a maximum of 10 satellites. If an offeror plans to operate a constellation significantly exceeding this number to provide higher revisit rates and data density, how should this additional capacity be reflected?

Does the Government prefer that vendors add additional rows to the spreadsheet to provide pricing for larger constellation scales?

Alternatively, should vendors only provide pricing for the exact quantities/scenarios currently listed in the template?

If the latter, will the Government allow for the incorporation of pricing for higher satellite counts at the task order level, or should the price for "10 satellites" be considered a ceiling for all larger quantities?

There is no ceiling of quantities. If a vendor can provide more data than the scenarios listed, the provider should add additional rows to accommodate their proposed amounts, respectively with their current structure and plans. However, in order for the government to evaluate fair and reasonable pricing between companies, the sum of only the rows initially in the excel sheet will be utilized in the TEP.

Attachment J.2 N/A

Subject: Clarification on Attachment J.2 TEP Scenarios and License Option 4 While License Option 4 is defined in the Data License Descriptions, it is not currently included as selectable or evaluated options within the TEP Pricing Schedule scenarios for the Base or Option periods. Will the Government consider adding License 4 and 4A ( with a 24-hour embargo)—to the TEP evaluation scenarios? Including these options provides a formal mechanism for the Government to evaluate the significant cost-savings associated with a US. Gov only licensing. From a cost perspective, License 4/4A allows vendors to offer highly attractive, discounted pricing because it preserves the commercial value of real-time data while providing the US Gov Weather Enterprise with a high-volume, low-cost solution for non-latency-sensitive applications

Yes, license 4 and 4A will be added as requested to each Functional Category.

Attachment J.2 N/A

Similar to question 4 above, will the government consider also adding a License option 5 and 5A which will restrict data use to a single Federal Government Agency… eg. U.S. Department of Commerce. This will allow vendors to offer even more aggressive discounts to NOAA

NOAA NESDIS does not intend to utilize this licence option for the SBEM

IDIQ.

Attachment J.1 Pg 2

Subject: Clarification on SOW Section C.3 General Requirements – Data Archiving and Storage Rights

The SOW states that "All data and products will be archived by NOAA" and that the Government may seek "value-added or derived products". Currently, the pricing scenarios in Attachment J.2 assume a standard delivery and archive model without specified duration limits.

Will the Government consider adding pricing scenarios or license options that allow for tiered pricing based on the duration of data storage and archival rights (e.g., 5-year archive, 10-year archive, vs. perpetual)? Also add pricing scenarios for "value-added or derived products"?

In the commercial satellite industry, the cost of data is also significantly impacted by the length of the storage as well as adding value to the raw data products.

By allowing vendors to offer discounts for shorter-term storage rights or applying markups for permanent archival rights, the Government can more effectively optimize its budget and capture substantial cost savings for data that may have a limited operational shelf-life. Similarly for raw vs. value added data products.

The pricing structure is a ceiling cost will be used for all data levels, including derived products. Please price accordingly. NOAA does not intend to update the pricing structure for duration of data storage as NOAA stores data through NCEI.

Attachment J.1 Pg 6

Subject: Clarification on SOW Section C.3.6 Security Requirements Can NOAA clarify whether compliance with NIST SP 800-53 High baseline (or equivalent) is required at time of award, or whether offerors may propose a phased approach demonstrating alignment at award with a defined timeline to achieve full compliance?

Compliance with security and privacy control standards are expected at the time data is delivered.

Attachment J.1 Pg 6

Subject: Clarification on SOW Section C.3.6 Security Requirements Can NOAA clarify whether security compliance requirements (e.g., alignment to NIST SP 800-53 High) are expected to apply to the entirety of an offeror’s data collection and processing architecture, or specifically to the systems and environments used to deliver data into NOAA’s operational ingest interfaces (e.g., NCCF)?”

NIST SP 800-53 applies not to the entirety of an offeror’s data collection and processing architecture, but to the systems and environments that process, store, transmit, or otherwise support federal information or services. At a minimum, this includes the systems used to deliver data into NOAA’s operational ingest interfaces (e.g., NCCF) and any intermediate staging, processing, or transmission components. The scope may also extend to upstream elements of the architecture where they materially affect the confidentiality, integrity, or availability of the data provided to NOAA.

Section C.2 Scope 1

Please confirm that the SBEM IDIQ is open to commercial systems operating in any orbital regime, including architectures that differ from heritage LEO systems referenced in the draft (e.g., systems with continuous coverage or non traditional constellation designs).

Correct. The SBEM IDIQ is open to any orbit regime and does not delineate orbit.

Section C.7.3.2.1 Observation Capability 38-39

Table 2 is based on legacy sensors and spectral ranges. Will NOAA clarify that these spectral references are guidance only, and that systems with alternative or expanded spectral capabilities (including different band placements or additional channels) remain eligible if they meet the stated mission objectives and product performance needs?

Yes, Table 2 is intended as guidance based on legacy sensors. Systems with alternative or expanded spectral capabilities—including different band placements or additional channels—are still eligible, provided they meet the stated mission objectives and product performance requirements.

Section C.3.2 Delivery Requirement s 3

For systems capable of continuous or near continuous data delivery, how does NOAA intend to interpret latency and cadence requirements in future Task Orders (e.g., should providers deliver at native instrument cadence, or at a cadence specified by NOAA for operational ingest and processing)?

NOAA will specify details on the latency required in Pilot and Operational TOs. However, NOAA only typically requires latency that is sufficient enough to meet operational ingest and processing.

Section C.3.2 & Section C.7.3.2 2–4, 38

Will NOAA allow disaggregated or multi platform architectures (e.g., separate instruments or platforms contributing to a single capability area) to collectively meet Task Order requirements, provided that end to end performance, coverage, and data quality objectives are satisfied?

Yes, disaggregated or multi-platform architectures are acceptable, provided they collectively meet the Task Order requirements as specified in the IDIQ and subsequent Task Order SOWs.

Section C (General Requirement

s) 1–8

Will NOAA provide evaluation criteria or additional guidance for novel or non heritage architectures whose performance characteristics differ from legacy systems (e.g., different spectral sets, coverage patterns, or data volumes), to ensure such offerings are evaluated on mission value rather than strict similarity to heritage systems?

Yes, NOAA will provide further clarification for novel or non-heritage systems during a Pilot Task Order RFP.

RFP Section L.8.2.1(f) 65

Under NAICS 518210, a small business may qualify at the time of initial award but exceed the $40M size standard during the 10-year (including options) period of performance. Can the Government clarify the "graduation" process? Specifically, if a contractor's status changes to "other-than-small," will they remain eligible for task orders, and at what point is a Small Business Subcontracting Plan required for a previously self-performing entity? Updated in RFP.

RFP Section

I (FAR

52.227-14) 35-37

Clause 52.227-14 grants the Government "unlimited rights" in data "first produced" in contract performance. Can the Government confirm that raw commercial data provided to NOAA is considered a "service deliverable" rather than "first produced" data, to ensure the contractor's commercial market is protected? Data created under contract performance is considered "first produced".

SOW Section C.3.7 7-8

Section C.3.7 states the Contractor assigns NOAA ownership and copyright of all contract deliverables, including raw data. This appears to contradict the data-sharing "Options" (1, 2, 3) which imply a licensed access model. Can the Government clarify if it requires outright ownership of the raw data or a perpetual license to use and distribute it based on the selected Task Order option?

We have provided License Data Rights Options in lieu of a Copyright and omitted the copyright clause from the RFP and SOW.

SOW Section C.7.3.2.3 48

Commercial multispectral sensors now regularly achieve resolutions significantly better than 750 m. To support the detection of small, early-stage fires, would the Government consider a horizontal spatial resolution threshold of 100 m–200 m?

NOAA concurs that the requirements for the detection of small, early-stage fires would be at considerably higher resolution than the stated 750m. However, the 750m value is a threshold value intended to cover a wide range of potential applications in the IDIQ. Individual Task Orders, such as one for the detection of early-stage fires, will have specific spatial resolution threshold requirements that can be higher than that value (i.e. the 100-200m mentioned).

SOW Section C.2 2

Does the Government intend to provide a streamlined "bridge" or transition mechanism for successful Pilots to move into Operational Deliveries without a new competitive solicitation?

NOAA NESDIS has a Transition to Operations (T2O) process to provide a mechanism to move successful pilots to sustained operational purchasing. While operational purchases will be from Offeror datasets that have completed the T2O process, solicitations may still need to be competitive due to U.S. Government procurement requirements.

SOW Section C.5.4 23-24

Would the Government consider reducing the GNSS-R threshold data volume to 100 tracks / day to account for the under-specified quality control metrics, which may vary or be more specifically defined in the Task Orders?

NOAA has reduced the threshold to 100 tracks/day to offer greater flexibility and account for QC metrics. Specific Task Orders may specify different data volumes.

SOW Section C.5.4 23

Would the Government be open to constraining the GNSS-R performance levels to L1 data characteristics (i.e. removing requirements such as accuracy/speed, which is a requirement on an L2 product that not is not directly controlled by all data providers)?

Yes, the GNSS-R performance levels for L1 data characteristics will be considered separately from L2 data characteristics. Specific Task Orders may request L1 data and/or L2 data which will have different requirements as described in detail in the Task Order.

SOW Section C.2 / Attachment J.2 5

The SOW notes that NOAA may seek "value-added or derived products". How does the Government intend for Offerors to account for the significant cost/effort delta between providing raw Level 0 data versus fully processed Level 2 geophysical products within the Attachment J.2 Price Schedule?

The pricing structure is a ceiling cost that will be used for all data levels, including derived products. Each Task Order will offer specifics on value-added or derived products requested, and Offerors will be able to provide a price breakdown narrative accounting for the processing premium over the base L0 and/or L1 data cost.

RFP Section B.3 / B.4 6

Will the Government consider adding separate CLINs or line items in Attachment J.2 for different data processing levels (e.g., Level 0, Level 1B, Level 2) for each Functional Category?

The pricing structure is a ceiling cost that will be used for all data levels, including derived products. Each Task Order will offer specifics on value-added or derived products requested, and Offerors will be able to provide a price breakdown narrative accounting for the processing premium over the base L0 and/or L1 data cost.

J.2+- +IDIQ+Price+ Schedule FC 4 - MSI Base Would the government be open to showing the calculation of km^2 Total Volume = AOI (sq km) × Frequency (per month) × Term (months)

The Contractor should enter the price per sq km as quantity independent of AOI. Pricing Sheet updated for clarity.

J.2+- +IDIQ+Price+ Schedule FC 4 - MSI Base

Including the disclaimer that pricing uses tiered marginal rates. Each rate applies only to the portion of volume within that tier — larger volumes unlock lower rates on incremental volume. With a minimum order of $100,000. Additional coverage area tiers with area's above 10 billion sq km requiring custom pricing.

The pricing tiers represent cumulative imaged area over the duration of the Task Order. For example, for a constellation providing daily global coverage, the entire surface area of the Earth is imaged 365 times per year and thus the km^2 coverage could be in the highest (billions) tier.

Each pricing tier reflects the price per km^2 for a specific range of total area purchased. For example, if a Task Order was for 600,000 km^2 of MS data, then the ceiling price for the 500,000-1M tier will apply.

SoW Section C.7.3.2.1 38

Suggest making the Threshold requirement for wildfire imagery a minimum of 3 bands: one in SWIR, one in MWIR, and one in LWIR. The additional SWIR band is important for characterizing the hottest wildfires that do the most ecosystem damage.

NOAA concurs that the threshold requirements of a minimum of 3 bands would be beneficial for wildfire imagery. However, the stated requirements are intended to cover a wide range of potential applications in the IDIQ. Please note that C.7.3.2.1 references desired spectral bands as reference guidance based on legacy capabilities. Task Orders will include specific threshold requirements for required bands, and may also request data vendors to propose alternative or enhanced spectral configurations provided they meet the overall mission objectives and product performance requirements.

SoW Section C.7.3.2.1 38

In SoW Section C.7.3.2.1, the ideal system has a lot of bands, seemingly trying to replicate the multi-use systems NOAA currently flies. For each application of interest, only a subset of the ideal bands are actually required. Suggestion is to change the language to "Ideal systems may include bands in the following ranges" or something to that effect.

As Table 2 provides overarching guidance, Contractors are required to meet one or more of the spectral ranges identified for each capability area. While an ideal system may include bands across the VNIR, SWIR, MWIR, and LWIR ranges, only a subset of these bands is necessary for any specific application, as also noted in item 4 of C.7.3.2.1.

SoW Section C7.3.2.2 39

Table 3 suggestions to clarify multispectral imagery performance requirements:

-Suggestion 1: State a spatial resolution threshold requirement of 1km, objective of 500m, across the entire swath.

-Suggestion 2: Spectral bands - recommend specifying the ideal bands as Objective requirements.

-Suggestion 3: Add a latency requirement (e.g. Threshold 3 hours, Objective 1 hour).

-Suggestion 4: Add a band-to-band registration requirement with Threshold of 500m, Objective of native pixel resolution.

-Suggestion 5: Add an Objective requirement for global coverage.

If the Government is not willing to modify Table 3, here are some other suggestions or points to clarify in SoW:

-Spatial resolution requirement - the IFOV requirement "shall not differ by more than 2x between the edge of the scan and nadir" is not clear. This is simply set by the max nadir angle of the scan; suggest this requirement is removed.

-Spectral response: This is stated as "ensure sensor relative spectral responses are well-calibrated and calibrated." This is not well defined. It's not clear what it means to be well characterized and calibrated.

-Radiometric Calibration: As stated, this is not a requirement. It's not clear that existing systems should be made to match legacy systems as this would have to be a design requirement when building the instrument. Second, the radiometric calibration accuracy requirement is use-case dependent. Recommend not requiring an overall requirement for this. Suggest requiring that the radiometric calibration accuracy is characterized and reported.

Low-light imagery is derived from the day-night band (DNB) sensor. Its proven value, particularly over Alaska, has led NESDIS to designate it as mission-critical. While low-light imagery has distinct observational requirements, it remains an integral component of the overall mission alongside weather imagery.

SoW Section C7.3.2.2 40

Table 3 suggestions to clarify multispectral imagery performance requirements:

-Suggestion 1: State a spatial resolution threshold requirement of 1km, objective of 500m, across the entire swath.

-Suggestion 2: Spectral bands - recommend specifying the ideal bands as Objective requirements.

-Suggestion 3: Add a latency requirement (e.g. Threshold 3 hours, Objective 1 hour).

-Suggestion 4: Add a band-to-band registration requirement with Threshold of 500m, Objective of native pixel resolution.

-Suggestion 5: Add an Objective requirement for global coverage.

If the Government is not willing to modify Table 3, here are some other suggestions or points to clarify in SoW:

-Spatial resolution requirement - the IFOV requirement "shall not differ by more than 2x between the edge of the scan and nadir" is not clear. This is simply set by the max nadir angle of the scan; suggest this requirement is removed.

-Spectral response: This is stated as "ensure sensor relative spectral responses are well-calibrated and calibrated." This is not well defined. It's not clear what it means to be well characterized and calibrated.

-Radiometric Calibration: As stated, this is not a requirement. It's not clear that existing systems should be made to match legacy systems as this would have to be a design requirement when building the instrument. Second, the radiometric calibration accuracy requirement is use-case dependent. Recommend not requiring an overall requirement for this. Suggest requiring that the radiometric calibration accuracy is characterized and reported.

Spatial Resolution: Covered in Table 4.

Spectral Bands: Guided by Table 2; intentionally flexible to allow vendor innovation.

Latency: Addressed in Table 4 BBR: Covered by geolocation calibration that includes consistent spatial alignment across bands.

Global Coverage: Covered in Table 4.

Additional Clarifications: See the updated Table 3 with accompanying notes

SoW Section C.7.3.2.2 41

Table 4 suggestions for multispectral observation requirements:

-Geolocation accuracy - The requested accuracy as written is better than a single pixel. That level of accuracy is not required for many applications. Suggest changing geolocation accuracy threshold requirement to 50% of Horizontal spatial resolution Requirement (i.e. 375m).

The geolocation accuracy aligns with legacy multispectral sensors.

Requirements are 750 m for VIIRS-type M-Band and 375 m for I-Band at nadir, with VIS–NIR imager bands requiring 375 m or better for operationally usable data.

SoW Section C.7.3.2.3 42

Table 5 suggestions for Fire Imagery requirements:

-Geolocation accuracy - The requested accuracy as written is better than a single pixel. That level of accuracy is not required for many fire imagery applications.

Suggest changing geolocation accuracy threshold requirement to 50% of Horizontal spatial resolution Requirement (i.e. 375m).

-Horizontal spatial resolution - Suggest changing the objective from 200m to 50m at nadir.

-L1B Latency - Suggest changing threshold to 1h, objective to 15 minutes.

-Fire Products: Suggest adding rows in the table for derived wildfire products such as fire detection, perimeters, and FRP.

-Spectral Bands: Suggest adding spectral band requirements to the table with a threshold requirement of one SWIR, one MWIR, and one LWIR band.

-Revist: Suggest adding a revisit requirement with no threshold, but an objective requirement to the table of <1h.

The threshold requirements are written to accommodate a wide range of possible Task Order applications, and specific Task Orders will have more restrictive threshold and objective requirements than those in the

IDIQ.

-Geolocation accuracy: The threshold and objective requirement for the geolocation accuracy is revised as follows.

Threshold: 100% of Horizontal spatial resolution, Objective: 50% of Horizontal spatial resolution.

-Horizontal spatial resolution at nadir: Objective can be reduced but for the general IDIQ we will revise to 100-200 m (considering that specific Task Orders may use 50m).

-L1B data latency: This is reduced but not to that extent, considering that this is for the IDIQ and that specific Task Orders may be more restrictive.

NOAA's preferred latency requirement for L1B data is:

Threshold: 3 hours, Objective: 60 minutes -Fire Products: This suggestion will be more relevant to specific Task Orders. Vendors are welcome to provide options that include derived fire products, but it is not required.

-Spectral Bands: Table 5 caption is revised to "MultiSpectral Fire Observational Requirements."

- Revisit rate is not added to Table 5 but the following sentence is added to the "C.7.4. Delivery Requirements" section.

"3. Requirements for constellation-level revisit/refresh rates will be specified in Task Order RFPs."

SoW Section C.7.3.2.3 42

Why is SoW Table 5 Fire Imagery specified as "VNIR"? Shouldn't this include the primary wildfire detection bands of MWIR, and the characterization and false-positive rejection bands of SWIR and LWIR? Suggest changing Table 5 to recognize that wildfire requires bands across the spectrum from visible through LWIR.

Table 5 caption is revised to be: "MultiSpectral Fire Observational Requirements."

SoW Section C.3.2 3

Can the Government clarify if the Areas of Interest (AOIs) and collection frequencies defined in a Task Order are intended to remain static for the duration of the performance period (meaning they won't change over the duration of a one year task order)?

Requirements shall not change during the period of performance of any Task Order unless specified in the Task Order or when an official modification is made.

SoW Section C.3.7 6

The following two data rights considerations for operational task orders are recommended to ensure competitive pricing and protect commercial viability: (1) limited license v. ownership: Grant NOAA a non-exclusive license for payload data deliverables (raw and processed data) for internal use and interagency sharing without transferring ownership and (2) time-bounded rights for distribution: transition NOAA’s perpetual distribution rights to a time-restricted model tied to the period of performance. These proposed data rights changes will enable NOAA to acquire data at a significantly lower price than less restrictive data sharing models while still achieving mission objectives.

We have clarified the licensing terminology in the SOW. We provide Data Licensing Options and have omitted references to ownership in the copyright clause from the RFP and SOW. With regard to time-bounded licensing rights, we will consider the limitations versus benefits of this type of contract for future DaaS purchases.

Draft RFP, Section L.6.2.2 66

Page 66 of the Draft RFP states: "The Technical Capability Volume shall demonstrate the Offeror's ability to provide on-orbit operational capability." Does this mean the prime must be a satellite or spaceborne sensor operator, and cannot be a data integrator or data broker?

The Contractor must operate a sensor on-orbit that provides a capability that meets the requirements in one or more Functional Categories.

Draft J.2 IDIQ Price Schedule n/a

The pricing template only has Data License Option and Supplies Quantity specifications. Do these mean this IDIQ is just intended for commercial data buy, and will not cover professional services with relevant labor categories? The IDIQ is primarily intended for commercial data purchases.

Draft RFP, Section I 26-27

We are a small business under NAICS Codes 518210 and as such aren't required to submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan under FAR 52 .219-9 but under NOAA Acquisition Manual 1330-52.208-70 SUBCONTRACTING WITH ABILITYONE NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS (DECEMBER 2022)a subcontracting plan with Ability One is required. How should a small business offeror address this requirement to subcontract with Ability One?

There are no mandatory contractual requirements to subcontract with AbilityOne. The Government encourages the prime contractor to provide subcontracting opportunities to AbilityOne contractors. The Government will review the Offeror’s proposed plan for using AbilityOne contractors and will consider the extent to which qualified AbilityOne contractors are proposed to perform aspects of the requirement, including work associated with the functional requirements of the SOW. AbilityOne will not be scored for evaluation purposes.

Draft RFP, Section L.6.2.1 65

Are the Section K certifications provided in Section L.6.2.1 to be provided in Offerors' proposals along with a statement regarding SAM .GOV certs and reps compliance? Or is only the SAM.GOV certs and reps compliance required?

Offerors are not required to submit a full Section K. In lieu of Section K, Offerors shall provide the required statement IAW section L.6.2.1(d) confirming that their SAM.gov representations and certifications are current, accurate, and complete as of proposal submission. No additional certifications are required unless explicitly identified elsewhere in the solicitation.

Draft RFP Section I Draft J.1 IDIQ SOW Section C.3.7 Pages 35-36Page 6

The Contract contains Clause 52.227-14/Rights in Data -General and the SOW in Section C.3.7/Data Rights. Section C.3.7 seems to contradict the Data Rights and Copyrights ownership as set forth in the applicable FAR Clause. Can the Government provide clarification regarding Copyrights and Data Rights for this opportunity?

We have provided License Data Rights Options in lieu of a Copyright and therefore omitted the copyright clause from RFP and SOW.

Draft SOW v4, Section C.4.3.3.4 pg. 13

Why is the minimum RO SNR requirement still set at 200 V/V? The Radio Occultation Modeling Experiment (ROMEX) procured data from all available RO missions using a minimum SNR threshold of 80 V/V, and EUMETSAT operationally purchases RO data at this same threshold for dissemination to global NWP centers. Results from ROMEX and other independent studies consistently show that SNR is not a significant factor in neutral RO data quality across missions, based on metrics such as bending angle quality, penetration depth, and NWP impact (Anthes et al., 2025, and others). We therefore recommend setting the threshold to 80 V/V, as has been the accepted international scientific practice

NOAA NESDIS's minimum SNR requirements remain as written, per SOW C.4.3.3. para 4.

Draft SOW v4, Section C.9.3 pg. 53

What is the likely unit of measurement for neutral density observations? Number of observations? Total span of observation time per day? Will this be averaged over some time period like the RO and Ionospheric tracks?

NOAA NESDIS revised the pricing sheet to reflect "Satellites per day" as the unit solicited. Additionally, NOAA NESDIS revised Section C.9.3. of the IDIQ SOW to define minimum requirements.

Draft SOW v4, Section C.9.3.2. pg. 55

Should OD-Estimated Non-Conservative Accelerations be listed as a requirement or as an optional data product? This data is not needed for all thermospheric density derivation approaches and, where required, could alternatively be derived by NOAA through orbit determination processing of dual-frequency GNSS tracking data.

NOAA NESDIS updated the Section C.9.3.2. of the IDIQ SOW to reflect the need to provide either "OD-Estimated Non-Conservative Accelerations" or "Data and metadata suitable for POD".

Draft RFP, Section L (Evaluation Criteria);

Section M (Award Basis) pg. 69

Will NOAA evaluate and award Functional Categories independently, or must an offeror receive a favorable rating across all proposed FCs to win any? If a company is rated highly for FC1 but marginal for FC6, can it still receive an FC1-only award? Yes NOAA will evaluate and award Functional Categories independently.

Draft RFP, Section G.5 (On-Ramp Provisions) pg. 14

For the permanent on-ramp (evaluated every 6 months), can an existing awardee add new Functional Categories it did not propose in its initial submission, or is the on-ramp limited to new entrants?

Yes, if a Contractor gains the capability to perform in a Functional Category for which they were not originally awarded, they may submit a proposal to add Functional Categories that will be evaluated based on the schedule and criteria established in this solicitation. If the Government determines the Contractor meets the technical criteria and the proposed pricing is fair and reasonable, the additional Functional Category will be incorporated into the Contractor's IDIQ contract via bilateral modification.

Draft RFP, Section G.6 (Interagency Use) pg. 15

Section G.6 notes that proposal data will be shared with ICAMS members (NASA, DoD, NSF, DOE, DOI). Will these agencies issue their own Task Orders against the SBEM IDIQ, or is this sharing for awareness/coordination only? If they can issue TOs, under what authority? This is for sharing purposes only.

Draft SOW v4, Section C.3.4 (Non- Duplication of Data) pg. 5

The non-duplication clause (C.3.4) states contractors ‘shall not deliver’ equivalent data under SBEM if they already supply it at equal-or-better latency to entities NOAA shares with. Does this apply at the individual observation level, the product level, or the data-type level? For example, if a Contractor provides RO data to EUMETSAT under a separate commercial agreement, does that preclude a Contractor RO data from SBEM, or only the specific profiles already delivered to

EUMETSAT?

This only applies to the specific data deliveries (e.g. specific RO profiles) to another entity.

Draft SOW v4, Section C.3.4 (Non- Duplication of Data) pg. 5

Under C.3.4, how does NOAA define ‘equivalent data’? If a Contractor delivers a different processing level (L0 vs L1), different latency tier, or different geographic subset to a third party compared to what it delivers to NOAA, would these be considered non-equivalent and thus not subject to the clause?

Section C.3.4. states that if a Contractor has an existing agreement (e.g., contract, service-level agreement, etc.) for a specific type of data with a latency that is equal or less (i.e., better) than what is required in the contract with NOAA and if the data sharing provisions of the other non- NOAA agreement allows immediate distribution to NOAA, then the Contractor shall not double-sell the same data to NESDIS CDP. If the Contractor, for example, is selling data that is a different processing level, different geospatial requirements, different observation/profile, and/or different resolution, etc, then that would not apply to this clause.

Draft SOW v4, Section C.3.7 (Data Rights — Copyright Assignment) pg. 6

The copyright assignment clause states all deliverables are assigned to NOAA. Does this apply to the raw L0 observation data itself, or only to the data as formatted/packaged for delivery under the SBEM contract? Can a commercial provider continue to sell substantially the same observations to commercial customers and other governments?

We have clarified the licensing terminology in the SOW. We provide Data Licensing Options and have omitted references to ownership in the copyright clause from the RFP and SOW.

Individual Task Orders under the IDIQ will indicate specific licensing for data products acquired.

Attachment

J.2 (IDIQ

Price Schedule) pg. 52

Currently, the pricing schedule separates pricing by Functional Category, and contains detailed questions for functional category subcategories based on data license type and quantity. Will the government consider bundled options for pricing if it wants multiple products across different functional categories?

Yes, the government may consider bundled options for pricing for Task Orders, but the IDIQ pricing schedule must still be filled out accordingly as if there was nothing bundled. The vendor may attach a document describing how additional discounts can be achieved by bundling, which prices are affected, and by how much.

Draft SOW v4, Section

C.4.4.1 (FC1

Cat 1, Enhanced Data Requirement

s) pg. 17

The SOW specifies an enhanced TO option raising the SNR threshold from 200 V/V to 1200 V/V. Is this ‘enhanced’ option expected to be a standard element of future operational TOs, or a premium tier that NOAA will use selectively? What fraction of total purchased RO profiles does NOAA anticipate requiring at the 1200 V/V level?

NOAA NESDIS intends to use this "enhanced" option as an add-on and not a standard element of future operational TOs. NOAA NESDIS cannot speculate on percentage of total RO purchased for the higher 1200 V/V level for future TO procurements.

Draft SOW v4, Section

C.4.2 (FC1

Cat 2 — Polarimetric RO) pg. 10

For PRO (Polarimetric RO, Category 2), does NOAA have a target number of profiles per day, or is this capability being evaluated purely on a pilot basis with volume TBD by Task Order? What is the pathway from pilot to operational purchase of PRO?

PRO is a capability that NOAA NESDIS intends to investigate at some undetermined time in the future to assist with precipitation specification.

The pathway from Pilot to Operations of PRO data will follow a similar path as RO and TEC by first Piloting with vendor(s) to thoroughly evaluate the data and also fund investments to integrate the data into the NWS operational pipeline. Once successful, and if approved, NOAA may enter into purchase agreements with vendors.

Draft SOW v4, Section

C.6 (FC3 —

Microwave Sounder, Spectral Tier Guidance) pg. 31

The SOW describes a tiered requirement from Tier 1 (≥20 channels across 50–60 GHz + 118 GHz) down to Tier 3 (≥12 channels at 118 GHz, TROPICS-class).

At what tier does NOAA expect to issue the first operational Task Orders? Will Tier 3 capability alone be sufficient for IDIQ award, or does NOAA expect a credible roadmap to higher tiers?

The tiered structure in the SOW is guidance, not a prescriptive requirement. Each parameter’s tiers are independent, so Tier 3 capability alone could be sufficient for an IDIQ award. The tiers are intended to help designers prioritize features that impact global NWP performance and allow flexibility for technology maturation. Individual Task Orders will define the specific requirements for each acquisition, including which tier is expected for initial operational use, and will clarify any roadmap to higher tiers as needed.

Draft SOW v4, Section

C.6 (FC3);

NOAA 1730

Operational MW Sounder solicitation (separate) pg. 27

There was a recent RFP for NOAA’s 1730 Operational MW Sounder. How does the SBEM FC3 relate to the 1730 procurement? Are these complementary (1730 as an operational pathfinder, SBEM FC3 as the long-term data-buy vehicle), or does one supersede the other?

The OTA by the NESDIS LEO office would help accelerate technology development to meet these requirements, but that effort is seperate from NESDIS CDP. Prospective Contractors would need to go through the SBEM IDIQ award process to be awarded a commercial data buy through

NESDIS CDP.

Draft SOW v4, Section

C.9 (FC6 —

Neutral Density, Satellite Physical Characteristic

s) pg. 55

For the satellite physical characteristics requirement (wet/dry mass, full CAD model of outer surfaces), what level of CAD fidelity does NOAA require? Is a simplified drag-effective cross-section model acceptable, or does NOAA require full mechanical CAD including antenna assemblies, solar panels, and appendages at manufacturing tolerance?

A “simplified drag-effective cross-section model” is not ideal because the appropriateness/accuracy of a vendor’s "drag-effective” calculations cannot be easily verified. However, full manufacturing tolerance is also not necessary. NOAA NESDIS updated Section C.9.3.2. of the IDIQ SOW to reflect that the required accuracy of CAD model dimensions will be defined in a per Task Order.

Draft SOW v4, Section

C.9.5 (FC6);

Section C.3.7 (Data Rights) pg. 58

FC6 data includes orbit position and velocity information. The SOW notes NOAA may apply more restrictive data-sharing rights to orbit data.