SWO-MOS Draft RFP Q and A Responses_05-09-25.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 487 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Space Weather Observations - Mission Operations Services (SWO-MOS) DRAFT REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP)
- Solicitation number
- DRAFT_1332KP24R0034
About this file
This document is a Draft Request for Proposal (RFP) for the Space Weather Observations - Mission Operations Services (SWO-MOS), a single-award Indefinite-Delivery Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) contract issued by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The solicitation seeks a contractor to develop a multi-mission operations service architecture supporting Space Weather Next (SW Next) space weather environmental observations, with two initial task orders focused on developing mission operations services for the SOL-A and L5 CCOR-3 observatories.
Key details include a planned contract period from January/February 2026 through March 2032, with task orders covering development of ground system capabilities, software instances, and operational infrastructure for space weather missions. The contract will require implementing mission operations services across NOAA facilities in Suitland, Maryland and Fairmont, West Virginia, with cloud-based solutions, FedRAMP compliance, and the ability to support concurrent operations for up to three observatories. The draft RFP indicates a small business subcontracting goal of 20% and an industry day scheduled for March 27, 2025, with written feedback due by April 15, 2025.
View the file
Other files
Show all 31
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
GFP-GFI
SWO-MOS Draft Request for Proposal Question and Answer 5-9-2025
| Section(s) | PDF Pg. | Paragraph | Question / Comment | Government Response |
| 3 | 10/12 | This section is missing reference to the GEO ground system (with prior existing SWFO L1 modifications) being provided as GFP to support integration, test, and launch support, without which the scope of TO 1 and TO2 cannot be performed. | Where the vendor's solution requires access to resources within the GEO Ground system for integration and tesing, they should indicate that in their proposal for the Government to evaluate. | |
| 3 | 10/12 | We recommend that NOAA consider providing the OS/COMET license and product support to the awardee as GFI. This is necessary as it is not readily available as a commercial item, as evidenced by an unproductive Internet product search and the failure to find it listed on searchable GWAC vehicles. Providing the product and support as GFI would facilitate a full and open competition and avoid any perception of a conflict of interest in the event that the OEM supplier chooses to submit an offer for the mission-unique development. | Noted, the Goverment will consider this as a part of final RFP development. | |
| 3 | 10/12 | The table of Government Furnished Property lists "Developed software in use on the SWFO-L1 C2 system to meet current mission requirements." The GOES-R operations SW should also be provided as GFP. | The Government will provide a response or address this item with the final RFP submission. | |
| 3 | 10/12 | Will NOAA GFE cloud services costs, including cloud provider support agreements, be provided as GFE to support SWO-MOS cloud-based solutions? | The Government does not plan to provide cloud resources as GFE. | |
| 3 | 10/12 | Does the government plan to provide cloud resources as GFE? | The Government does not plan to provide cloud resources as GFE. |
DRFP
SWO-MOS Draft Request for Proposal Question and Answer 5-9-2025
| Section(s) | PDF Pg. | Paragraph | Question / Comment | Government Response | |
| B | 10/129 | B.8, SubCTR Competition, 1st para. | |||
| B.8, SubCTR Competition, 1st para. | "The contractor is required to conduct subcontractor competitions for all subcontracted services and supplies/ODCs proposed in response to task order solicitations..." | Does the gov’t intend to allow the prime contractor the ability to on-ramp subcontractors, if competed, post primary IDIQ award? |
| This [requirement/section] is written to apply to task order solicitations. | The prime Contractor shall be responsible for compliance by any subcontractor or lower tier subcontractor in performance of the contract. | ||||
| B | 9/129 | B.3, TO Pricing, 2nd para. | "Some task orders may require services that do not correspond to the labor categories included in the IDIQ." | Are labor categories going to be supplied in the RFP or IDIQ PWS, and, if so, how will these be used in the proposal submission and post award? | Offerors will propose labor rates to be evaluated for reasonableness within the IDIQ and resulting Task Orders. The Government will include an attachment along with the Final RFP. | |
| B | 9/129 | B.3, TO Pricing, 3rd para. | "The TO CO will establish an appropriate Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) structure and identify the applicable contract type for all CLINs in each task order." | Please identify where in the RFP documentation the CLINs are defined for proposing TO 1 and TO 2 work elements per the approproiate CLINs. | For TO1 and TO2, the CLIN structures will be defined in the Price Schedule Attachment. | |
| B | 9/129 | B.3 Task Order Pricing | Will the Goverment provide a standard list of labor categories in which the offeror will map or does the offerer simply provide a list of categories used in the proposal? | Offerors will propose labor rates to be evaluated for reasonableness within the IDIQ and resulting Task Orders. The Government will include an attachment along with the Final RFP. | |
| B & G | 11/129 |
19/129 B.8, last para.
G.6 The solicitation states that the contractor must maintain an approved contractor purchasing system (CPS) for the duration of the IDIQ contract in accordance with FAR 44.3. However, it does not specify whether an approved system is required at the time of award or if the contractor may work toward obtaining approval post-award.
Can the Government confirm whether a Contractor Purchasing System Review (CPSR) approval must be in place prior to award, or if the contractor will be allowed to implement and obtain approval during contract performance? (ref: DRFP Section B.8 and G.6)
| In relation to the preceding question, does the Government intend to initiate a CPSR for the awardee as part of this acquisition, and will it accommodate the potential lead time required for DCMA to schedule and complete the review? | A Contractor Purchasing System Review (CPSR) is not required before contract award. The requirements for a CPSR are available at 44.302 Requirements. The Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO) determines the need for a contractor purchasing system review (CPSR). The Government anticipates revising this part of the solicitation to "The contractor is responsible for meeting the requirements of FAR Subpart 44.3- Contractors’ Purchasing Systems Reviews" | |||
| E | 15/129 | CAR 1352.246-70 (b) Inspection & Acceptance | "Place of acceptance will be: Specified in each individual Task Order." | Place of acceptance is not defined in the TO1 and TO2 PWS. |
| Please clarify. | Noted, the Goverment will consider this as a part of final RFP development. | |
| F & L | 16/129 |
103/129 F.1 Delivery
CAR 1352.215-70 (b)(3)(iii)(A)(1)(b)(6) | "Incorporates the deliverable milestones identified in Section F.1 of this solicitation into their overall approach." Section F.1 does not currently identify any deliverable milestones.
| Could the Government please amend the Draft RFP with Section F.1 for TO-1 and TO-2? | Noted, the Goverment will consider this as a part of final RFP development. | ||||
| General | N/A | N/A | Will TOs be incrementally funded using the appropriate CLINs? | Yes, Task Orders will be incrementally funded using the appropriate CLINs (excluding FFP). | |
| General | N/A | N/A | Please confirm the NAICS Code for this acquisition. | The NAICS code for this requirement is 541512. | |
| General | N/A | N/A | Would the Government please provide the budget secured for the SWO-MOS effort by Fiscal Year? | The SW Next program annual budget request can be found as part of the NOAA submission: https://www.noaa.gov/organization/budget-finance-performance/budget-and-reports |
| H | 28/129 | CAR 1352.216-75, Minimum and maximum contract amounts. | What is the contemplated contract ceiling value? | Noted, the Goverment will consider this as a part of final RFP development. |
| H | 31/129 | CAR 1352.237-75 (a), Key personnel | "The contractor shall assign to this contract the following key personnel: (Name) (TBD); (Name) (TBD)" | What positions will be subject to key personnel provisions for TO1 and TO2? | Noted, the Government will provide the list of required Key Personnel in the final RFP. |
| H | 31/129 | CAR 1352.237-75, Key Personnel, 1st para. | Will the Final RFP provide a list of required Key Personnel or will the Offerors be expected to propose our own Key Personnel? | Noted, the Government will provide the list of required Key Personnel in the final RFP. |
| H | 24-25/129 | H.5 Contractor Employees' Identification | What are the specific security clearance requirements for personnel working on this contract? | This acquisition is unclassified and the contractor will not require access to classified materials. |
| H | 24-25/129 | H.5 Contractor Employees' Identification | Are there any special considerations for handling of sensitive or classified space weather data? | The contractor must comply with appropriate security requirements. |
| H | 28/129 | CAR 1352.216-75 Minimum and maximum contract amounts. | Will NOAA be providing ceiling value for the IDIQ and CLINs? | Yes, NOAA will provide the maximum ceiling value of the IDIQ, but not the individual CLINs. |
| H | 30-31/129 | CAR 1352.237-75 Key personnel. | Will the government provide required key personnel positions? | Noted, the Government will provide the list of required Key Personnel in the final RFP. |
| J | 20, 88, 99, 100, 105, & 123/129 | Section J Requirements | Section J is referenced throughout the Draft RFP, but there is no Section J in the RFP. |
| Please confirm the requirements listed. | Noted, the Goverment will consider this as a part of final RFP development. | ||
| K | 81-82/129 | FAR 52.234-3 |
(a) The offeror shall provide documentation that the Cognizant Federal Agency has determined that the proposed earned value management system (EVMS) complies with the EVMS guidelines in Electronic Industries Alliance Standard 748 (EIA-748) (current version at time of solicitation).
(b) If the offeror proposes to use a system that has not been determined to be in compliance with the requirements of paragraph (a) of this provision, the offeror shall submit a comprehensive plan for compliance with the EVMS guidelines. The draft PWS outlines the need to adopt Agile Development processes; however, EVMS and Agile Development can be contradictory because they are based on fundamentally different approaches to planning and measuring progress.
• EVMS emphasizes upfront planning, fixed baselines, and measuring performance against cost and schedule metrics (e.g., Planned Value, Earned Value, Actual Cost). It assumes a linear, predictive project structure.
• Agile, on the other hand, embraces flexibility, iterative development, and evolving requirements. Progress is measured through working software and team velocity rather than rigid cost/schedule baselines.
In essence, EVMS expects predictability and control, while Agile prioritizes adaptability and responsiveness, making it challenging to align the two without modifying one or both frameworks.
Based on this contradiction, will the Govt accept a modified EVMS approach (Integrated Agile EVMS) to blend the traditional 'waterfall' EV principles with Agile's iterative nature (e.g. planning based on product backlog...)?
| Yes | ||||
| L | 100/129 | CAR 1352.215-70(b)(2)(iii)(A)(1)(b) | "The Offeror shall describe its approach to developing and deploying a MOS capability in support of the Space Weather Observations at L1 (SOL) project, consistent with the List of Material provided as Attachment 1." | Could the Government please amend the Draft RFP with the attachment 1 List of Materials? | The List of Materials will be included with the final RFP. |
| L | 101/129 | CAR 1352.215-70(b)(2)(iii)(A)(2)(h) | "The Offeror shall describe its approach for meeting the mission assurance requirements as described in the Space Weather Ground Services (SWGS) Ground Segment (GS) Mission Assurance Requirements (MAR) document." | Could the Government please amend the Draft RFP with the Space Weather Ground Services (SWGS) Ground Segment (GS) Mission Assurance Requirements (MAR) document? | Draft copy of SWGS GSMAR uploaded to SAM.gov on 3/26. |
| L | 104/129 | CAR 1352.215-70(b)(3)(iii)(A)(1)(f) | "The Offeror shall provide resumes for all Key Personnel." | Will the Government be identifying which positions are to be designated as "Key Personnel"? | Noted, the Government will provide the list of required Key Personnel in the final RFP. |
| L | 109/129 | CAR 1352.215-70(b)(5)(iii)(A)(1)(a)(1) | "The Contractor shall populate Attachment S.X with all required and proposed cost information for all CLINs included on the SF 33 of the solicitation." | Could the Government please amend the draft RFP with Attachment S.X? | We will provide the spreadsheet NLT when we post the final/formal RFP. |
| L | 111/129 | CAR 1352.215-70(b)(5)(iii)(A)(1)(c) | "Offerors shall submit a Basis of Estimate (BOE) to support their proposed costs. The BOEs are to be submitted for each task order period of performance including optional CLINs at WBS Level 4." | Will NOAA provide a standard WBS for the Task Orders with associated CLIN mapping to ensure equal evaluation? | Draft copies of SWO-MOS WBS and Applicable and Reference (A-R) Documents List uploaded to SAM.gov on 3/26. |
| L | 99/129 | CAR 1352.215-70(b)(2)(i)(A) | "The Technical Proposal must describe the Offeror’s proposed SWO-MOS solution, which meets all requirements of the base Performance Work Statement (PWS), TO-1, TO-2, and other technical and programmatic requirements established in Section J of this solicitation." | Will the Government be releasing a draft of Section J and associated documents prior to the Final RFP release? |
Section J is not included in the current draft RFP documents. Specifically, we would appreciate advance copies of Section J, the MO SRDs for each of the Task Orders, and the L5 Project Review Plan. Draft copies of TO-01 and TO-02 MOSRD uploaded to SAM.gov on 3/26.
L 100/129 CAR 1352.215-70 (b)(1)(iii)(A)(1)(c) | "The Offeror shall describe its approach to replicating the existing SWFO-L1 C2 system for use in fulfilling SWO-MOS requirements, using the C2 baseline information provided as a part of this RFP." NOAA makes it clear in the Draft PWS and SOW documents that it is expected the SWO-MOS contactor will use the deployed SWFO C2 system as the baseline framework. We are aware NOAA intends to include the SWFO C2 system design documents in the Bidders Library at RFP release. We do not feel that provides us enough time to understand the current C2 system and to develop a complete technical solution. The below are most critical documents to have prior to the Final RFP release as it will provide Industry with ample time to understand the specifics of the required SWFO-L1 C2 baseline, creating the most competitive and equal playing field.
• SWFO-L1 C2 Operations Concept (SE-02)
• SWFO-L1 C2 Requirements Specification (SE-03)
• SWFO C2 Design Description (SE-07)
• SWFO-L1 C2 Database Design Description (SE-13)
• GOES-R Ground System Design Description (SE-07)
• SWFO C2 Critical Design Review Package (RE-04)
| Could the Government please amend the Draft RFP with the deployed SWFO C2 system baseline information/design documents prior to RFP releas to ensure industry can submit the most thorough technical proposals possible? | The SWFO C2 baseline information will be available via the SWO-MOS Bidders Library upon release of the formal RFP and offeror completion of NDA and formal request. | ||||
| L | 99/129 | CAR 1352.215-70(b)(2)(i)(C) | "Vol II shall ... not exceed 50 pages." | Would NOAA consider increasing the page limit for the Technical Vol from 50 pages to 75 pages given the need to address our technical approach for TO 1 and TO 2 seperately and in sufficient detail to convey the features and benefits of our offer? | Noted, the Goverment will consider this as a part of final RFP development. | |
| L | 110/129 | CAR 1352.215-70(b)(5)(iii)(A)(1)(b)(1), 1st bullet | "The proposed key and non-key labor categories required to execute the technical aspects of the PWS." | Please clarify the requirement to propose key labor categories, as opposed to proposing key personnel positions which are then filled by name not by category. | Noted, the Government will provide the list of required Key Personnel in the final RFP. | |
| L |
111/129
112/129
116/129 CAR 1352.215-70 |
(b)(5)(iii)(A)(1)(b)(4), 1st bullet, last sub-bullet | ""Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) for the Offeror and major subcontractor(s)";
(b)(5)(iii)(A)(1)(d) | ""...first-tier subcontractors) shall submit a total compensation plan setting forth salaries and fringe benefits proposed for the professional employees who will work under the contract IAW FAR 52.222-46"; and
(b)(5)(iii)(A)(2)(iv)(B) Please clarify the relationships between the followig terms to enable Offerors to properly respond -
• "major" subcontractor on page 111/129,
• "first-tier" subcontractor on page 112/129, and
• "key" subcontractor on page 116/129.
| Does the definition for "key" on page 116/129 apply to all variants of the term? | A major subcontractor is one whose subcontract equals or exceeds both the certified cost or pricing data threshold and 10% of the prime contract value, or $55 million. A first-tier subcontractor is a subcontractor who contracts directly with the prime contractor for supplies or services. A key subcontractor is a subcontractor (excluding those solely providing supplies) who is appointed by the prime contractor to provide key elements of the project. | ||||
| L | 112/129 | CAR 1352.215-70 (b)(5)(iii)(A)(2)(b)(1), Labor Rates | "The cost proposal shall reflect actual labor rates anticipated to be expended during performance." | Please clarify the use of the term "actual" labor rates vs "proposed" labor rates | Actual labor rates are the wages and benefits an employer actually pays their employees, while proposed labor rates are the rates estimated and included in a proposal or contract. The key difference is that actual rates reflect current payroll data, whereas proposed rates are estimates based on projections and may not always match the final incurred costs. | |
| L | 112/129 | CAR 1352.215-70 (b)(5)(iii)(A)(2)(b)(1), Labor Rates, 4th bullet | "Derivation of rates for unnamed or growth positions (if applicable)." | This narrative implies that rates should be provided by employee, including those that are "unnamed", rather than proposing rates by position. |
| Please clarify. | Proposing rates by position is acceptable. | |||
| L | 115/129 | CAR 1352.215-70 (b)(5)(iii)(A)(2)(g), Fee | "For TO-02, the task type is cost-plus-fixed-fee, and the maximum award fee is TBD%." | Inclusion of the term "award" fee may be in error [as] the SF 33 does not have CLINs representing CP award fee contracts, just CP Fixed Fee. |
| Please clarify whether TO 2 will be award fee or fixed fee. | Noted. RFP will be revised to state "maximum fixed fee" instead of "maximum award fee". | ||
| L | 115-116/129 | CAR 1352.215-70 (b)(5)(iii)(A)(2)(iv)(B), Cost or Price Analysis of Subcontractors | |
1st para. | "If proposed, cost information for each subcontractor shall be furnished in the same format and level of detail as prescribed for the prime Offeror.";
3rd para. | "Subcontractors are deemed “Key” if the subcontractors providing effort consist of $15M or more OR more than 10% of the prime contractor’s proposed price, on a per task order basis. Subcontractor proposals are not required for those subcontractors that do not meet the threshold."; and
4th para. | "Key subcontractors shall provide separate chapter-structured cost proposals comprised of costs exhibits, Attachment S.1, that support the proposed Subcontractor pricing." These two requirements appear to conflict.
| Please clarify the proposal submission requirements for each subcontractor "type". | Additional proposal material is not required if the subcontractor is not Key. | ||||
| L | 110/129 | CAR 1352.215-70 (b)(5)(iii)(A)(1)(b)(4) | "If Offerors propose general administrative support as a direct cost, IAW the Offeror’s Disclosure Statement, the following information SHALL be provided in the BOE by WBS consistent with the instructions above:..." | Recommend that this information be provided in narrative form in the body of the Cost Vol, as including it in every BOE is less efficient and would result in a very large number of pages due in part to the large amount of redundant information. | Noted. | |
| L | 115/129 | CAR 1352.215-70 (b)(5)(iii)(A)(2)(iv)(A), SB Subcontracting Plan | "The SB Subcontracting Plan (see FAR 52.219-9, and DFARS 252.219-7003 or 252.219-7004, as applicable), submitted by Large Business Offerors, shall meet the requirements of FAR Part 19 and DFARS Part 219." | If the Offeror has an approved DoD Comprehensive SB Subcontracting Plan that encompasses the results of the proposing Cage Code, can this be submitted as an acceptable alternate to the development and use of a custom plan for this contract? | Please follow instructions provided in CAR 1352.215-70 for the development of the SB Subcontracting Plan. | |
| L | 95/129 | CAR 1352.215-70 (b), Overall Arrangement of Proposal | "The Offeror shall electronically submit a PDF-copy of each Proposal Vol marked accordingly, and IAW the following instructions. Offerors shall submit proposals in five Vols, specified as follows:..." | If Offerors submit only 5 Vols, is it the Government's intent that each Vol address both Task Orders? |
| If so, how should this be organized within each Vol? | Noted, the Goverment will consider this as a part of final RFP development. | ||||
| L | 100/129 | CAR 1352.215-70 (b)(2)(iii)(A)(1)(c) | "The Offeror shall describe its approach to replicating the existing SWFO-L1 C2 system for use in fulfilling SWO-MOS requirements, using the C2 baseline information provided as a part of this RFP." | Please clarify the Government's intent is using the term "replicate" in the context of the existing SWFO-L1 C2 system being used to fulfill TO1 (and TO2 ?) requirements. | This requirement has been modified for the RFP. | |
| L | 100/129 | CAR 1352.215-70 (b)(2)(iii)(A)(1)(a) | "The Offeror shall describe how its approach meets the requirements of the SWO-MOS development, ensuring system compliance with the PWS and the technical and performance requirements established in Section J of this solicitation." | Section J has not yet been provided. |
| Please identify when this document and the balance of the draft RFP will be available. | Noted. | |||
| L | 100/129 | CAR 1352.215-70 (b)(2)(iii)(A)(1)(b) | "The Offeror shall describe its approach to developing and deploying a MOS capability in support of the Space Weather Observations at L1 (SOL) project, consistent with the List of Material provided as Attachment 1." | Attachment 1 has not yet been provided. |
| Please identify when this document and the balance of the draft RFP will be available. | Noted. | ||||
| L | 91-92/129 | L.5, Supply Chain Risk Assessment Information, 1st para. | “The offeror/contractor shall submit the following information with its proposal or after award at the Government's request:” | Please clarify when is this information due? | It is due with the offeror's proposal. | |
| L | 91-92/130 | L.5, Supply Chain Risk Assessment Information, 1st para. | “The offeror/contractor shall submit the following information with its proposal or after award at the Government's request:” | Which proposal Vol should the Supply Chain Risk Assessment Information be included in? | This should be included in the Technical Volume. | |
| L | 100-102/129 | CAR 1352.215-70 (b)(2)(iii)(A) | |
(1)(a, b, c, e) Sub-Factor A;
(2)(a) Sub-Factor B; and
(3)(b, c) Sub-Factor C The Draft RFP refers to "List of Material provide as Attachment 1", "C2 baseline information", "broader NESDIS enterprise" "existing interfaces and systems" , "Existing components of the NOAA5050 System," "IT security requirements of NOAA5050 System Boundary". These are very specific items associated with existing NOAA systems.
When will the specified Attachment 1 be provided?
| What will be provided on these other items and when? | Noted, the required documentation will be provided with the final RFP. | |||
| L | 102/129 | CAR 1352.215-70 (b)(3)(i)(C) | The Draft RFP states that the corporate experience should be no longer than three pages. However, there are no additional instructions on what should be included in the Corporate Experience section or how it will be evaluated. |
| Is Corporate Experience required (in addition to Past Performance) and if yes, please provide those instructions/clarifications? | Noted, the Goverment will provide this as a part of final RFP development. | |||
| L | 105-108/129 | CAR 1352.215-70 (b)(4), Vol. IV | Past Performance | In accordance with "FAR Subpart 42.15 (Contractor Performance Information)," Government agencies are directed to prepare past performance evaluations at least annually, using the Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPAR). As a result, many Government agencies no longer complete Customer Past Performance Surveys, since the requirement is to enter this data into a CPAR which is then stored for Government use in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). In addition, Survey data is not materially different than data collected via the CPAR/CPARS process. Requiring reference clients to complete a PPQ places an unnecessary burden on Government personnel. |
We request the Government incorporate the following: "If the referenced Past Performance contract has received a CPAR evaluation within the past 5 years, a PPQ is not required." OR
| If a CPAR for a referenced contract is published in the federal CPAR system, will the government allow us to use the CPAR instead of a PPQ? | Noted, the Goverment will consider this as a part of final RFP development. | ||||
| L | 114-115/129 | CAR 1352.215-70 (b)(5)(iii)(A)(2)(g), Fee | Will the Final RFP specify a maximum fixed fee, or will the Government allow Offerors to propose a fee based on the DFARS 215.404-71 Weighted Guidelines Method, in alignment with the program's associated risk? | Noted, the Goverment will consider this as a part of final RFP development. | |
| L | 97 & 104-105/129 | CAR 1352.215-70 (b)(1)(i) | "[Vol I shall include, if applicable,] a small business subcontracting plan, justifications for noncompetitive proposed subcontracts..." | The Small Business Participation and Subcontract Management (Sub-Factor F), inclusive of a SB Subcontracting Plan, is identified as a component of Vol III. |
| Please clarify in the Final RFP. | Noted, the Goverment will consider this as a part of final RFP development. | ||||
| L | 94-95 & 98-99/129 | CAR 1352.209-70 (a)(2), Potential organizational conflict of interest | "As a part of the proposal, the offeror shall provide the Contracting Officer with complete information regarding previous or ongoing work that is in any way associated with the contemplated acquisition." | Will this information be required by subcontractors (key/first-tier) as well, as part of the Prime Offeror's OCI Mitigation Plan in Vol I? | Yes, we require offerors to identify and address potential OCIs, and this includes evaluating potential conflicts at the subcontractor level. | |
| L | 88/129 | L.1, Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Offerors, 1st para. | Will the Government please provide a draft list of Section J documents, exhibits, and other attachments for reference? |
| Recommend that this information also be provided in the Bidders Library as soon as possible. | Noted, the required documentation will be provided with the final RFP. | ||||
| L | 104/129 | CAR 1352.215-70 (b)(3)(iii)(A)(1)(f), Sub-Factor D | "The Offeror shall provide resumes for all Key Personnel..." | Is the Offeror to propose Key Personnel, or will the Government specify which positions are considered Key Personnel? | Noted, the Government will provide the list of required Key Personnel in the final RFP. | |
| L | 90/129 | L.3, Electronic Proposals | What will be the response time given post-final solicitation release to proposal response/submission. (e.g., 45 days)? | Noted, the Goverment will consider this as a part of final RFP development. | |
| L | 104/129 | CAR 1352.215-70 (b)(3)(iii)(A)(3)(a), Sub-Factor F | "Offeror shall describe their approach to meeting the SB Objective of a SB utilization goal of 20% of total contract dollars." | Are there any specific small business subcontracting goals for this contract beyond the stated 20% of total contract dollars? | The small business subcontracting goals remain unchanged. | |
| L | 100/129 | CAR 1352.215-70 (b)(2)(iii)(A)(1)(C), Sub-Factor A | "The Offeror shall describe its approach to replicating the existing SWFO-L1 C2 system for use in fulfilling SWO-MOS requirements, using the C2 baseline information provided as a part of this RFP." | Can the Government please release the bidders library prior to Final RFP? |
| This will provide Industry with ample time to understand the specifics of the required SWFO-L1 C2 baseline, creating the most competitive and level playing field. In addition, detailed information about SWFO-L1 is required to achieve the near-term TO1 milestone for the initial factory build. | The Government will provide access to the bidders library when the final RFP is posted to sam.gov. | |
| L | 99/129 |
102/129
106/129 CAR 1352.215-70 (b)(2)(i)(C)
CAR 1352.215-70 (b)(3)(i)(C)
CAR 1352.215-70 (b)(4)(i)(C)
"Vol (xx) shall be typed and PDF-printed, single-spaced, with one inch margins, using Times New Roman, 11 point font..." The Cover Page will include proprietary data notices that do not fit well in TNR 11 font.
| Can the cover pages be excluded from the font requirements? | Noted, the Goverment will consider this as a part of final RFP development. | |||
| L | 100/129 | CAR 1352.215-70 (b)(2)(ii)(F), Attachment 1: List of Materials | "This is excluded from the 50-page limit." | Does this list of materials pertain to TO-1 and TO-2? |
| Please clarify the expectations for this attachment. | Attachment 1 does not pertain to TO-1 nor TO-2. The final RFP will provide instructions for these task orders. | |||
| L | 99/129 | CAR 1352.215-70 (b)(2)(ii)(D), Technical Proposal | "Offerors shall clearly address each of the technical evaluation factors in Section(s) L and M, and at a minimum, cover each factor’s sub-factors. This is included in the 50-page limit." | There are 40 unique prompts for the Technical factor and subfactors. Covering 40 prompts to any level detail is a challenge within the 50 page limit. |
| We recommend additional pages, 75 total, for the Technical factor. | Noted, the Goverment will consider this as a part of final RFP development. | |
| L | 88/129 |
90/129 L.1, Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Offerors, 2nd para. | "Responses are due by 12:00 PM (Noon) Eastern Standard Time on TBD and shall be submitted via FedConnect IAW Section L.3."
L.3, Electronic Proposals | "Proposals submitted in response to this solicitation shall be due no later than 5:00PM, Eastern Standard Time (EST), on TBD." The due times are inconsistent.
| Please clarify the proposal due times. | L.3 refers to the due date of Q&A responses, not the proposal due date. Paragraph 2 of L.1 refers to the proposal due date. The Goverment will consider this as a part of final RFP development. | ||||
| L | 102/129 | CAR 1352.215-70 (b)(3)(i)(C) | "Submitted corporate experience information is limited to no more than three pages." | Should this be treated as an appendix to Vol III - Management Proposal, much like the Data Management Plan? | Correct. | |
| L | 106/129 | CAR 1352.215-70 (b)(4)(ii)(F) | "Offerors considered to be a LB are required to address historical compliance with the requirements of FAR Part 52.219-8, (Utilization of Small Business Concerns) in a separate narrative not to exceed one page. LB are also required to address historical compliance with the requirements of FAR Part 52.219-9 (SB Subcontracting Plan) in a separate narrative not to exceed one page. This is included in the 20-page limit." | Would the Government consider excluding the Utilization of Small Business Concerns and SB Subcontracting Plan from the 20-page limit to create fairness across all potential competitors? | Noted, the Goverment will consider this as a part of final RFP development. | |
| L | 106/129 | CAR 1352.215-70 (b)(4)(i)(C) | "The Past Performance Questionnaires (Attachment S.2) submitted by individuals providing past performance assessments is excluded from the 20-page limit." | Could the Government please provide Attachment S.2? | The Attachment S.2 will be provided with the Final RFP. | |
| L | 109/129 | CAR 1352.215-70 (b)(5)(iii)(A)(1)(a), Cost Summaries | "The Contractor shall populate Attachment S.X with all required and proposed cost information for all CLINs included on the SF 33 of the solicitation." | Could the government please provide Attachment S.X prior to Final RFP? | The Attachment S.X will be provided with the Final RFP. | |
| L | 114/129 | CAR 1352.215-70 (b)(5)(iii)(A)(2)(d), Travel and Misc ODCs | "Offerors shall propose the necessary costs for travel and miscellaneous non-material ODCs on a per task order basis." | Would the Government consider providing a plug number for Travel and ODC? | Noted, the Goverment will consider this as a part of final RFP development. | |
| L | 105/129 | CAR 1352.215-70 (b)(3)(iii)(A)(3)(f)(2), Teaming Agreements | "Submit any letters of intent, teaming agreements, or other evidence of commitment by subcontractors, if applicable." | The required teaming agreements are not listed as being excluded from the Vol page count limits, but will likely far exceed the 20 page limit for the Vol, regardless of any other Vol content. |
| We recommend that these be included as an appendix and excluded from the page count limits. | Noted, the Goverment will consider this as a part of final RFP development. | |||
| L | 103/129 | CAR 1352.215-70 (b)(3)(ii)(D) | "Management Proposal. Offerors shall clearly address each of the management evaluation factors in Section(s) L and M, and at a minimum, cover each factor’s sub-factors. This is included in the 20-page limit." | Of the requirements that are not explicitly excluded from the page count limits, there are 20 unique prompts for the Management factor and subfactors. Covering 20 prompts to any level detail is a challenge within the 20 page limit. |
| We recommend additional pages, 30 total, for the Management factor. | Noted, the Goverment will consider this as a part of final RFP development. | ||||
| L | 105/129 | CAR 1352.215-70 (b)(3)(iii)(A)(3)(g), Sub-Factor F, 2nd para. | "The SB utilization goal for the SWO-MOS requirement is 20% of total contract dollars. The SB utilization goal of 20% of total contract dollars is applicable to the general SB utilization goal." | Would the Government confirm that the SB utilization goal is against the complete IDIQ and not on a TO basis? | The SB utilization goal is 20% of the total IDIQ contract dollar value. | |
| L | 114-115/129 | CAR 1352.215-70 (b)(5)(iii)(A)(2)(g), Fee | "For TO-02, the task type is cost-plus-fixed-fee, and the maximum award fee is TBD%." | As this is stated as a CPFF task order, we are assuming that the TBD should be maximum fixed fee instead of award fee. |
| Please confirm. | Noted. RFP will be revised to state "maximum fixed fee" instead of "maximum award fee". | |||
| L | 118/129 | CAR 1352.239-71 Electronic and information technology, para. (d) | "Offerors must submit representation information concerning their products by completing the VPAT template at http://www.Section508.gov." | Is the VPAT information limited to non-GFE items and required with the proposal? If so, we assume it is excluded from any Vol page limits and font requirements. |
| We recommend that the VPAT be due with the program design reviews instead of with the proposal. | Noted, the Goverment will consider this as a part of final RFP development. | |||
| L | 106/129 | CAR 1352.215-70 (b)(4)(iii)(A), Evaluation Factor 3 | Past Performance | "Offerors shall submit past performance information for up to five (5) total recent and relevant contracts." | Our company has a wealth of recent and relevant past performance, some of which is classified. |
| Are offerors permitted to submit classified and/or unclassified/redacted write-ups for classified programs up to TS/SCI? | Yes. | ||||
| L | 112/129 | CAR 1352.215-70 (b)(5)(iii)(A)(1)(d) | "Offerors (including Prime Offeror or Joint Venture and first-tier subcontractors) shall submit a total compensation plan setting forth salaries and fringe benefits proposed for the professional employees who will work under the contract IAW FAR 52.222-46." | Suggest amending to major/key subcontractors (e.g. subcontractors that exceed $15M or more OR more than 10% of the prime contractor’s proposed price) and excluding T&M subcontractors. | Noted, the Goverment will consider this as a part of final RFP development. | |
| L | 113/129 | CAR 1352.215-70 (b)(5)(iii)(A)(2)(b)(3) | "Offerors shall provide supporting rationale for all direct labor proposed and indirect rates proposed. If a Forward Pricing Rate Agreement (FPRA), as defined in FAR 15.407-3, has been negotiated, provide a complete copy. Offerors lacking Government-approved indirect cost rates must provide detailed background data indicating the cost elements included in the applicable pool and a statement that such treatment is IAW the company's established accounting practice. Offerors with established rate agreements with cognizant Federal agencies shall submit one copy of such agreements." | Would the government waive the requirement for detailed rate background data for both direct labor and indirect rates if the offeror proposes using an FPRP, but has an FPRR or FPRA that is submitted with the proposal since this data would have already been provided to the DACO/DCAA to generate the FPRR? | Noted, the Goverment will consider this as a part of final RFP development. | |
| L | 105-106/129 | CAR 1352.215-70 (b)(4), 2nd para., Past Performance | "Offerors considered to be a “large business” are required to address historical compliance with the requirements of FAR Part 52.219-8 (Utilization of Small Business Concerns) in a separate narrative not to exceed one page. In addition, large businesses are required to address historical compliance with the requirements of FAR Part 52.219-9 (Small Business Subcontracting Plan) in a separate narrative not to exceed one page." | If a submitter has historically been categorized as a small business and has not been required to develop a small business subcontracting plan in accordance with FAR Part 52.219-8 and FAR Part 52.219-9 requirements for past performance, how should they address these one page narratives? |
How will lack of past performance in executing a SB subk plan be rated?
Will past performance as the dominant partner in a Joint Venture (JV) be acceptable to meet past performance requirements as a "prime contractor"? Per the solicitation, at least three (3) of the the offerors submitted contracts must have been performed, or are currently being performed, by the Prime Offeror, Joint Venture, and/or Partners of the Joint Venture.
If an Offeror does not have a history of relevant contract experience, or if past performance information is not available, the Offeror will receive a neutral past performance rating.
L 88/129
90/129 L.1 Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Offerors, 2nd para.
L.3 Electronic Proposals Instruction states “responses are due by 12:00 PM (Noon) EST on TBD and shall be submitted via FedConnect IAW Section L.3”. But in L.3, responses shall be submitted no later than 5:00 PM EST.
| Please clarify the submission time and requirements. | L.3 refers to the due date of Q&A responses, not the proposal due date. Paragraph 2 of L.1 refers to the proposal due date. The Goverment will consider this as a part of final RFP development. | ||||
| L | 101/129 | CAR 1352.215-70 (b)(2)(iii)(A)(2)(c) | Will the Contractor's factory facilities fall under the same cyber requirements as the NSOF and CBU MOCs? | Where development environments and facilities are not connected to NOAA operational spacecraft, the same (NSOF, CBU) requirements would not apply. However, contractor factory facilities must be protected to the Moderate level if the systems and software developed therein will be delivered and used in NOAA operational environments. | |
| L | 100/129 | CAR 1352.215-70 (b)(2)(iii)(A)(1)(f) | Will the govt. provide the network management services for the direct network connections between the SWO-MOS and factory environment(s)? | NOAA does not permit direct connections to external sources. All connections must go through N-Wave. The one exception is if the external source is connected to the NASA network (NASCOM). |
| L | 101/129 | CAR 1352.215-70 (b)(2)(iii)(A)(3)(a) | When the SWO-MOC is transitioned to operations, is the expectation that SWFO-L1 will also be migrated off GOES-R system with this milestone? | There is no plan to migrate SWFO-L1 operations at this time. |
| L & M | General Question | Will the Government provide more specific Section L and M requirements addressing the responses to Task Orders 1 and 2 in the Final RFP? |
| Recommend this information be provided in the Bidders Library. | Noted, the Goverment will consider this as a part of final RFP development. | |
| L & M | 91/129 |
120/129 L.5 Supply Chain Risk Assessment Information | "The offeror/contractor shall submit the following information with its proposal or after award at the Government's request:..."
M.3 Evaluation of Supply Chain Risk Assessment Information | "The Department will evaluate the information provided to assess the supply chain risk associated with the offeror’s proposal and to determine if the award is in the national interest of the United States." Section L states that the Supply Chain Risk Assessment information may be submitted "with the proposal or after award". Section M states that this will be evaluated.
| How will this be evaluated if an offeror chooses to deliver after award? | Section L will be revised to state "with the proposal." | |||
| M | 121/129 | CAR 1352.215-75, 2nd para., Evaluation criteria | "The Government intends to make one award under this solicitation that will be made to the responsible, responsive Offeror who represents the best overall value to the Government, following the evaluation of the factors and sub-factors identified in Section M of this solicitation." | What assumptions should Offerors make relative to award of each Task Order, e.g., - |
• Will award of the IDIQ include award of both task orders?
| • Will they have the same start date? | Contract award will include the award of at least one Task Order. | |||
| M | 120/129 | CAR 1352.215-73, M.2 | General considerations | No explicit criteria for evaluation of life cycle cost reductions. At the NOAA Industry Day, emphasis was placed on submission of solutions that would reduce overall life cycle cost. Our interpretation of Section M is that there are no explicit provisions for evaluating cost-saving approaches, including cost savings that extend beyond the two TOs. |
| Will Section M be updated to reflect this emphasis, and, specifically, how will future life cycle cost reductions (e.g., automation, cloud migration) be assessed given that the scope of TO1 and TO2 does not call for solutions that encompass the whole life cycle, in accordance with the 3-Types of Task Orders to be released, as briefed at Industry Day (page 21, Solutions, Sustainment/Maintenance, Studies)? | Proposals may describe how an Offeror's approach will reduce costs. | |||
| M | 120/129 | CAR 1352.215-73, M.2 | General considerations | No explicit criteria for evaluation of life cycle cost reductions. |
Information presented at the NOAA Industry Day encouraged the submission of solutions that would reduce overall life cycle cost.
| How should Offerors submit ideas for cost reductions that would depend upon NOAAs acceptance of the tailoring of some of the requirements in each PWS, and/or CDRL? | Proposals may describe how an Offeror's approach will reduce costs. | |||
| M | 120/129 | CAR 1352.215-73, M.2 | General considerations | No explicit criteria for evaluation of life cycle cost reductions. |
The TO1 and TO2 PWS do not address potential impacts to the GEO Ground System for proposed SWO MOS solution approaches.
| Is NOAA open to considering technical approaches that would result in GEO Ground System modifications, and, if so, how will the potential benefits and risks of these approaches be evaluated? | Noted, the Goverment will consider this as a part of final RFP development. | |||
| M | 126/129 | CAR 1352.215-75(2)(2.2)(a), Element E: Task Order Management | "The Government will evaluate the Offeror's approach: a) To task order management under the SWO-MOS IDIQ." | It is not apparent that Offerors are to propose any activities in support of the Base IDIQ PWS, as there is no Task Order for the IDIQ. |
| Please clarify how Task Order Management under the SWO-MOS IDIQ will be evaluated. | In accordance with the solicitation, please refer to Volume III Sub-Factor E, Task Order Management. | ||
| M | 121-129/129 | CAR 1352.215-75 Evaluation criteria. |
| Section M describes how each factor/sub-factor will be evaluated, but does not address how each will be rated. | Please clarify in the RFP how each factor/subfactor will be rated, i.e. Color Score, Risk Rating, Points, Confidence Rating, etc. | Adjectival confidence ratings will be used to evaluate each factor. This will be incorporated in the Final RFP. | |||
| SF 33 | 4-6/129 | OF-336, Cont Sheet(s) | CLIN IDIQ Ceiling Amounts. | Will the government provide Ceiling amounts for all CLINs/TOs in an updated Draft RFP? | We will fill in the appropriate IDIQ contract min/max amounts for CAR Clause 1352.216-75 (Minimum and maximum contract amounts) when we award the contract. |
SF 33 4 & 5/129 OF-336, Cont Sheet(s) | CLIN definitions in SF 33. CLINs 0003 and 1003 are defined as cost reimburseable, but the scope is not defined.
CLINs 0005 and 1005 are defined as for travel and other direct cost, but the contract type is not defined.
| Please clarify. | Noted, the Goverment will consider this as a part of final RFP development. | ||||
| General | N/A | N/A | Given NOAA’s strategic objectives of prioritizing programmatic flexibility, adaptability, and leveraging commercial partnerships as outlined in the NSOSA study and the Next Generation Satellite Architecture, could the Government elaborate on how a single-award | ||
| IDIQ aligns with these goals compared to a multiple-award IDIQ? | In accordance with FAR 16.504(c)(1)(ii)(B), multiple awards would not be in the best interest of the Government because the projected orders are so integrally related that only a single contractor can reasonably perform the work. | ||||
| General | N/A | N/A | A multiple-award approach could enhance competition, distribute risk across vendors, and allow NOAA to tap into diverse expertise and innovative solutions from multiple contractors—particularly for a scalable, multi-mission system like SWO-MOS that must evolve over a 10-year period. What specific factors led to the preference for a single award, and would the Government consider revising this to a multiple-award structure to better mitigate risks and ensure long-term adaptability?” | The Government has determined that a single contractor is required so that only one vendor is responsible for development of the SWO-MOS systems and overlapping responsibilities can be avoided. | |
| L | 100/129 | CAR 1352.215-70 (b)(2)(iii)(A)(1)(c) | "The Offeror shall describe its approach to replicating the existing SWFO-L1 C2 system for use in fulfilling SWO-MOS requirements, using the C2 baseline information provided as a part of this RFP." | NOAA makes it clear in the Draft PWS and SOW documents that it is expected the SWO-MOS contactor will use the deployed SWFO C2 system as the baseline framework. We are aware NOAA intends to include the SWFO C2 system design documents in the Bidders Library at RFP release. We do not feel that provides us enough time to understand the current C2 system and to develop a complete technical solution. The below are most critical documents to have prior to the Final RFP release as it will provide Industry with ample time to understand the specifics of the required SWFO-L1 C2 baseline, creating the most competitive and equal playing field. |
• SWFO-L1 C2 Operations Concept (SE-02)
• SWFO-L1 C2 Requirements Specification (SE-03)
• SWFO C2 Design Description (SE-07)
• SWFO-L1 C2 Database Design Description (SE-13)
• GOES-R Ground System Design Description (SE-07)
• SWFO C2 Critical Design Review Package (RE-04) Could the Government please amend the Draft RFP with the deployed SWFO C2 system baseline information/design documents prior to RFP releas to ensure industry can submit the most thorough technical proposals possible? The Government will not provide these documents earlier than the final RFP. The SWFO C2 baseline information will be available via the SWO-MOS Bidders Library upon release of the formal RFP and offeror completion of NDA and formal request.
IDIQ PWS
SWO-MOS Draft Request for Proposal Question and Answer 5-9-2025
| Section(s) | PDF Pg. | Paragraph | Question / Comment | Government Response |
| 1.4 | 10-11/23 | Scope, 2nd para. | Will the ground link interfaces to the NOAA hosted satellites be provided as GFE? | Antennas and associated simulators will not be GFE to the MOS contractor. |
| 1.4 | 10-11/23 | Scope, 2nd para. | Will the Contractor need to operate space vehicles during pre-launch test events and LEO activities or will those operators be NOAA provided? | Mission support will be specified in the TOs. |
| 1.3 | 10/23 | Space Weather Ground Services Overview, Last para. | "It is SWO’s intention that SWO-MOS will leverage components of the existing NESDIS enterprise to the greatest extent appropriate, including but not limited to use of OS/COMET® for telemetry and command, the NASA Attitude Ground System (AGS) for attitude computation and management, and the NASA General Mission Analysis Tool (GMAT), an open-source package for orbit determination solutions, maneuver planning, and related functions." | Does the Government intend to provide OS/COMET as Government Furnished Equipment? |
| Providing this as GFE will eliminate any potential OCI concern or unfair pricing advantage, e.g., there would be a concern if the provider of OS/COMET is also providing a bid as a Prime. Another option would be to exclude pricing those specific items from the total evaluated price or providing plug numbers. | Noted, the Goverment will consider this as a part of final RFP development. | |||
| 1.3 | 10/23 | Space Weather Ground Services Overview | The government has identified several software components to be used inside the MOC for SWO. |
| Will the cost to sustain these software subsystems be determined by the government and will that cost be included in the final RFP as either a percentage or dollar value? | Noted, the Goverment will consider this as a part of final RFP development. | |||
| 1.3 | 10/23 | Space Weather Ground Services Overview | The government has identified several software components to be used inside the MOC for SWO. |
| Will these software subsystems be determined Government Furniture Equipment (GFE)? | The Government does not intend to provide OS/COMET or open source software as GFP. |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .