BAA_Industry_Day_Q&A_Part_1.pdf

General Questions

1) The BAA (GEO) states in Section 3.A, “Note that a single concept may be the capabilities of a single instrument that meets a subset of the Appendix 1 requirements (e.g., an imager) or multiple independent sensors that cover the entirety of Appendix 1’s requirements (e.g., separate imagers and lightning mappers).” This is re-iterated in a slightly different manner in

Section 3.A.1.1 as, “the Offeror may submit a white paper exploring instrument concepts for multiple observations or individual instruments that provide multiple observations either simultaneously or in time-shared operation (i.e., using one instrument that can do two (or more) observations but not at the same time).” The question is: Can a single integrated instrument package consisting of a suite of instruments that meet a targeted subset of

Appendix 1 requirements be considered for an instrument concept study?

Yes

2) “Government entities must clearly demonstrate that the work is not otherwise available from the private sector and provide written documentation citing the specific statutory authority

(as well as, where relevant, contractual authority) establishing their ability to propose to government solicitations. Specific supporting regulatory guidance, together with evidence of agency approval will be required to establish eligibility. NOAA will consider eligibility submissions on a case-by-case basis; however, the burden to prove eligibility for all team members rests solely with the Offeror.”

Does this mean that NASA Goddard civil servants can propose?

A Government organization can provide a response if they meet the criteria outlined. We will not accept responses from individual civil servants.

3) Can you clarify whether institutions that are awarded studies under this BAA will be eligible to bid on the mission/instrument implementation when it’s solicited?

Organizations that are awarded a study will be eligible for future procurements, as will organizations that do not participate in the BAA process.

4) Appendix 4 list dimensions for "MW Imager". There are however, no requirements for the imager mentioned in this BAA. I assume the MW imager is not part of the call for this round of white papers submission. Can you, please, address this in more details?

The intent of including the SWAP for MW Imager was to show that the common spacecraft bus could be designed to accommodate other payloads of opportunity for missions beyond sounder-sat (Section 2.2 1b) and still be of reasonable size to be orbited by a small launch vehicle. We are not soliciting MW Imager sensors for this BAA.

5) The Appendix 1 (Sensors Requirements) defines precision requirements "expressed as an error in layer average temperature" for temperature soundings and "expressed as a percent of average mixing ratio in 2 km layers". These precision requirements include errors that could be caused by a retrieval algorithm, state of the atmosphere, and others. How these precision requirements relate to instrument characteristics, such as radiometric resolution

(NEDT) for a microwave radiometer? Can you recommend an algorithm we should use?

Better yet, can you express them in instrument characteristics, e.g. as radiometric resolution

(NEDT) for microwave sensors?

The requirements are set in geophysical terms. We do realize that there is dependence on algorithms choices and other aspects. It is expected that the vendors will propose sensors designs (including NEDTs) to meet those geophysical requirements, assuming reasonable assumptions (of algorithms, vertical averaging, representativeness of assessment set).

6) LEO, Page 9: Paragraph C states "the steps include flying prototype or demonstration versions of the payloads that trade performance to meet launch date and cost targets".

Since performance variations can dramatically impact instrument design, how will NOAA define the performance levels to fly? Will this be the baseline performance or be determined after reviewing final reports?

This sentence refers to the first and possibly second launches as we build toward full operational performance. Due to the short time span between award and first launch, it is expected that there is minimal time to develop a sensor from scratch. Choosing the sensor that provides the best performance against the criteria in Appendix 1 that supports this first launch will be the best value for NOAA.

7) LEO, Page 8 & 14: The NOAA "reference constellation" refers to a small government -owned and operated satellite (page 8) but the questions on Page 14 seem to indicate being open to other business models (e.g. "observation data or satellite platform as a service", etc.). What does the phrase "government-owned and operated" mean to NOAA?

A ‘Government owned and operated’ system is one that NOAA pays for the development as well as the operation and maintenance. This is different than a service, where the development, operations, and maintenance costs are borne by the service provider.

8) GEO, All Attchs., pg1: Are the documents referenced by the GEO Attachments available?

We will post links to the documents on FBO.

9) If an FFRDC meets the 3 conditions listed in the BAA, does that mean NOAA can potentially acquire a flight payload from an FFRDC in the future? This will help us decide whether or not we want to strategically partner with industry now.

NOAA expects any FFRDC or Government organization to have a transition plan associated with their first article so industry (private sector) can develop all future articles.

10) Under the BAA (GEO), Table 2, “Max (“Objective”)” column, “1 band at 100-190 nm for auroral imaging”, should it be “… 1000-1900 nm…”?

No. The stated band of 100-190 nm is correct for auroral imagery.

11) Regarding the 3 required documents for FFRDCs, are these required for submission along with the white paper or at the full proposal phase. If required with the white paper, do they count toward the maximum page limit?

These should be supplied along with the white papers and do not count toward the page limit.

12) The 3rd requirement for FFRDCs requires compliance with the terms and conditions. To what terms & conditions are you referring? I was unable to locate the terms and conditions as part of the BAAs.

The terms and conditions that are discussed here are the ones that are with the FFRDC sponsor. "Must demonstrate compliance with the associated FFRDC sponsor agreement and terms and conditions."

13) On p. 9 of the GEO BAA it says, “The likely use of sounder data will be through direct use of radiances in inversion systems and through assimilation into Numerical Weather Prediction

(NWP) models…”. However, the requirements listed in Appendix 1 refer only to geophysical variables (EDRs). Are there specific requirements on the radiances (SDRs) that are referred to in the quoted statement?

No. The requirements are listed in the BAA in geophysical terms, and not in SDRs characteristics. This is done in order to leave a margin for innovation and creativity from the vendors to design the sensors to meet the geophysical information content we are seeking.

We do acknowledge this is a challenge because ultimately NOAA is planning to use the

SDRs themselves for inversion and data assimilation purposes as noted above. So part of our objective is to assess in this phase the best way to define the requirements (in EDR or

SDR terms) and feedback is sought in this area.

14) For the LEO BAA, will identifying an industry partner during the white paper phase be preferred or will explaining the plan to transfer from a FFRDC to an industry partner yet to be determined be sufficient?

Identifying and outlining a plan to transfer from an FFRDC to an industry partner still TBD is sufficient.

15) We understand that NOAA (and NASA) are allowed by law to enter into multi-year anchor tenancy contracts with termination liability. Can you please describe how this contracting approach has been used by NOAA and any barriers you see to doing so for new Mission

Concepts.”

NOAA has not done this to date. We are open to investigating any options and terms you include in your white paper.

16) We are seeking to understand to what extent NOAA is willing to explore architectures that would deploy solutions that might contribute to (and potentially overlap with) the NESDIS cloud architecture. Does NOAA expect to make resources available for the study to ensure the ground implementation is aligned with and synergistic with the NESDIS roadmap?”

For this these BAAs, we have not included ground interfaces or concepts to keep from constraining innovative ideas.

17) Offerors are instructed to "submit a separate whitepaper for each concept" if they would like to submit for "multiple distinct instruments or mission concepts". If NOAA assesses that a consolidated RFP response is more advantageous to the Government than separate, distinct responses, will NOAA request a consolidated RFP response?

18) What capabilities and/or frequency bands does NOAA consider to comprise a "microwave sounder" and "microwave imager"?

The BAA did not include defining the actual microwave frequency bands or ranges when mentioning sounders or imagers, in order to allow vendors to innovate when designing the sensors to meet the geophysical information content we are seeking. That being said, in general microwave sensing is assumed to be performed between 1 and 300 GHz and could be expanded into the sub-millimeter spectral region. Microwave sounding is generally performed around the Oxygen and Moisture absorption lines, and microwave imaging is generally understood to refer to surface-sensing frequencies in the microwave spectrum.

19) GOES currently has a number of different downlink capabilities. Will those capabilities be maintained going forward? Will any of those capabilities be consolidated? Similarly, JPSS includes direct downlink, TDRSS, and stored data links. Will these services be maintained?

SARSAT communications will not be retained. NOAA seeks to understand commercial options for GOES Rebroadcast (GEB), EMWIN/HRIT, and Data Collection Platform (DCP) communications transfers. For the purposes of this BAA only, the JPSS direct download services, TDRSS, and stored data links are not to be considered.

20) We understand that 3-dimensional observations of horizontal wind are of keen interest to

NOAA and the National Weather Service, who would be interested in assimilating those observations into their numerical weather prediction (NWP) systems. The ESA Aeolus mission has recently demonstrated the viability of a lidar wind sounder in orbit and the

ECMWF has demonstrated skill improvement using these data in their models. The LEO

BAA describes the Soundersat flight concept but is unclear on whether Doppler wind lidar soundings are within scope. We believe this mission type is sufficiently mature to fly in your concept of operations. Is our understanding correct that such a sounder concept would be welcomed in response to this BAA?

NOAA plans a future request to pursue 3-D winds. Our intention with this sounder sat effort is to support temperature and moisture profiles. However, if the concept can meet the temperature and moisture sounding requirements, and provide additional information that is of interest to NOAA, the submitter is free to propose such a concept.

21) When does NOAA estimate announcing Study Awards?

We will provide this as part of our plenary presentation.

22) Can we get a description of the various sample constellations?

A reference constellation was provided in the BAA announcement.

23) GEO: On Page 19, in Section 4.1.2 (White Paper Guidelines), first paragraph, bullet 4, the instructions specify describing how the proposed concept contributes to the requirements of

NESDIS’s sounding observation mission. Should this bullet instead indicate “NESDIS’s observation mission” (i.e., not just sounding)?

Correct, this is an error. Bullet 4 should read: “How their concept contributes to the requirements laid out in Section 3.”

24) GEO: Table 1 indicates the number of specific bands to be 16+ (“Target”), up to 32

(“Objective”). Has NOAA considered what additional spectral bands beyond the GOES-R baseline would be desired, in addition to a Day-Night Band (DNB)? If not specific bands, does NOAA expect that additional bands would be more useful in the Visible and Near-infrared (< 3 mm) or in the Infrared (> 3 mm)?

Although NOAA has considered what additional spectral bands would be useful beyond the current 16 on ABI, we are looking for industry guidance, without NOAA pre-conceived notions, on what the wavelengths of the additional bands could/should be, why those bands are recommended, and how they would benefit NOAA’s customers.

25) GEO: Does NOAA have threshold and objective NEdT and SNR requirements for imaging?

Accuracy for Geo imaging is not stated in NEdT and SNR terms in this BAA. Threshold and objective requirements for imaging are however listed in terms of Radiometric accuracy.

26) GEO: What is the minimum elevation angle that will be considered valid for coverage?

Alternatively, what is the minimum acceptable GSD?

The imager, sounder, lightning mapper, and coronagraph tables in the appendix show

IFGOV/resolution requirements.

27) Should paragraph 3 (“Instrument Study Final Review…”) under 3.A.2.1 of the GEO BAA be replicated in section 3.A.2.1. of the LEO BAA? Likewise, should it also appear in

Section 3.B.2.1 of both the LEO and GEO BAAs? Or are these calls and their current language intentionally different?

No. The LEO BAA will not require a final review.

28) What is the government’s timeline for issuing RFPs?

We will provide this as part of our plenary presentation

29) What is the expected timeline from RFP issue to submittal?

We will provide this as part of our plenary presentation

30) What level of response should we expect for the RFP? Please provide more information on content of request.

Information requested for proposals shall be determined by the individual white paper responses.

31) When does the government expect to issue study awards (assuming funding is available)?

We will provide this as part of our plenary presentation.

32) What is the planned cost and fee structure/schedule for the studies?

It’s expected that each study is FFP, but other contract options are possible. See Section 1 under ‘Award Information’

33) What proprietary protections can industry expect/implement coming out of the studies?

All proprietary information will be protected, as per standard operating procedure. Those entities whose white papers are of interest will receive a targeted invitation for proposal, so proprietary information will remain within NOAA’s custody. We do encourage submitters to rely on non-proprietary information as far as possible.

34) LEO: Small Satellites (especially common bus designs) offer reduced schedules compared to larger ones with flight times from ATP commonly in the 2 to 3 year timeframe. Would the government be interested in launching sooner than the FY25 timeframe and/or compressing the tempo of the execution schedule?

Yes. We would be interested in the cost and risk implications of doing this also.

35) LEO and GEO, Pgs 6+12: The POP is defined in 3.A.2.3 (both LEO and GEO BAAs) as

NTE seven (7) months from ATP.

This POP includes "up to six (6) months to perform the study and produce the deliverables, plus one month for follow up questions and/or clarifications."

However, in Award Information section, the duration of the study is defined as, respectively, 6 months and 7 months under the LEO BAA and the GEO BAA.

Are the duration of the LEO/GEO studies identical or different?

Both LEO and GEO BAAs have a PoP of 6 months to perform the study and produce the deliverables with one additional month for follow up questions and/or clarifications..

36) LEO, Pg 7: The BAA says: "NESDIS will release requests for methods and concepts to meet other observation needs in the near future, consistent with the availability of funds."

Does a notional schedule for those future requests exist?

In general, NOAA plans to issue future requests for studies to develop the remaining parts of the LEO architecture on one year centers.

37) LEO and GEO, Pg 8: The reference constellation is said to have "mandatory and optional elements" - which elements are mandatory/optional?

The GEO BAA is explicit on page 8 for the optional elements. The LEO is less so since there are a range of items being asked to consider.

38) LEO and GEO, Pg 10: Is "study constellation" (LEO) the same as "reference constellation"

(GEO)?

39) LEO, Pg 19:There is an ERROR in GEO BAA - the requirements for white paper concepts include, "How their concept contributes to the requirements ... regarding NESDIS’s sounding observation mission" - most likely an artifact from the LEO BAA document.

Correct, this is an error. Bullet 4 should read: “How their concept contributes to the requirements laid out in Section 3.”