Revised_Questions_ _Answers.docx

NNM16581797R

Question#1. Proposal states that evaluation should focus on assessing impact and benefits using NASA Satellite data in models on stakeholders and the decision-making processes. (pg. j-1-2, section 2, second paragraph).

Are we to consider the decision making process of government agencies? Flood-warning organizations? Both?

Answer: Both

Question#2. Proposal mentions AST team worked in collaboration with “country partners.” (pg. j-1-2, section 2, first paragraph, 4th sentence).

Are these partners among the stakeholders? Are these partners government entities involved in the decision-making processes?

Answer: The AST project worked closely with FFWC.

Question#3. Proposal states that the flood warning system improved from “3-day to 8-day advance warning.” (pg. j-1-2, section 2, first paragraph, 4th sentence) Can we assume the 5-day earlier warning be fully attributed to Jason-2 (i.e. there were no other innovations that improved the warning time)?

Answer: No, do not assume the 5-day earlier warning be fully attributed to Jason-2. FFWC was already doing a 3-5 day forecast. The AST project extended this to an 8 day warning.

Question#4. We understand that Jason-2 tracks levels of the Ganges and Brahmaputra Rivers more than 600 miles upstream of Bangladesh.

Does the agency want an evaluation of Jason-2 satellite information 600 miles upstream from the Bangladeshi border on the Ganges and Brahmaputra separately, or does the agency want an evaluation of the Jason-2 satellite information from the point at which the rivers merge?

Answer: No. The solicitation states “at least one key flood-impacted region of Bangladesh”.

Question#5. Proposal states that “…local scientists are working to scale-up the model to other neighboring countries.” (pg. j-1-2, section 2, first paragraph, 5th sentence) Does the agency have a specific countries they wish to consider?

Answer: No. The proposers do not need to focus on any other countries. Just focus on “at least one key flood-impacted region of Bangladesh”.

Question#6. Proposal states that “proposer shall be responsible for identifying sources of information in at least one key flood-impacted region of Bangladesh.”

Does the agency have particular regions they wish us to consider?

Answer: No.

Question#7. Proposal does not list an expected level of effort.

Question: Does the agency have an expected level of effort or is this something we as contractors would propose?

Answer: Contractors should propose level of effort.

Question#8. Proposal does not list any proposal packaging instructions.

How many copies would the agency like to receive? b) Is the address to ship our proposal NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center, Office of Procurement, Marshall Space Flight Center AL 35812?

c) Who shall we send this in attention too? d) Would you like a USB file as well?

Answer: Yes, that is the physical address, however please email the proposal to myself at sharrief.a.alamin@nasa.gov.

Question#9. Is there an incumbent that has performed a similar evaluation to the SOW for the agency?

Answer: To the best of our knowledge, no similar work has been performed.

Question#10. We would like to add two additional question to our previous list of submitted questions in response to solicitation no.: NNM16581797R, NASA Validation Study: The Value, Benefits, and Impact of SERVIR Applied Sciences Teams (AST).

The revised RFP attachment J-2 has a series of forms listed:

· Form 1580CD-001 Technology Reports

· 1580EE-001 Environmental Compliance Reports,

· 1580MA-001 Final Scientific and Technical Report

· 1580MA-002 Monthly Progress Report

· 1580SA-001 Off-site Safety, Health, and Environmental (SHE) Plan

· 1580SA-002 Off-site Mishap and Safety Statistics Report Not all these forms are listed in the deliverables section in the RFP, can you please confirm which forms are relevant to the RFP?

Answer: These are required deliverables. The Data Procurement Document (DPD) items will be required as part of the contract award.

Question#11. DRD 1580MA-001 (page J-2-15) states that the initial submission of the Final Scientific and Technical Report should occur 30 days after the completion of the contract. This, however, is not the final deliverable on the contract, and it is to be followed by a presentation to “SERVIR leadership at the conclusion of the project” (page J-1-4). The conclusion of the project is the end of the period of performance (POP) stated in the contract. However, DRD 1580MA-001 creates a conflict in that it states that the initial submission of the final report occurs outside the contract POP, and, because the final presentation is to occur after this support is submitted, causes this presentation also to occur after the contract end date. We believe that a timeline that has all deliverables occurring within the contract POP is appropriate, and is required and customary per Federal Acquisition Regulations.

Can you please confirm that such a timeline is acceptable, irrespective of the information contained in DRD 1580MA-001 stating that the initial final report submission occur outside the POP?

Answer: Yes, delivering the presentation prior to the end date of the period of performance confirmed.