Tracking T0 Questions and Answers.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 13 KB Posted
- Attached to
- SDA Tracking Layer Tranche 0 DRAFT RFP Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- SDA-SN-20-0009
- Issued by
- Space Development Agency
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Attach 3 Tracking Layer T0 WFOV TRD (Draft).xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attach 1 - Tracking Layer TO WFOV SOW (Draft).pdf | ||
| HQ085020R0003.pdf | ||
| Attach 2 - Tracking Layer T0 WFOV Proposal Instructions (Draft).pdf | ||
| Attach 5 - Tracking Layer T0 WFOV Deliverables List (Draft).pdf | ||
| Attach 7 - Tracking Layer T0 WFOV CDRLs (Draft).pdf | ||
| Attach 6 - Tracking Layer T0 WFOV GFE List (Draft) .pdf | ||
| Attach 4 - Tracking Layer T0 WFOV Evaluation Factors (Draft).pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Q&A
| Tracking Layer Tranche 0 - Questions and Answers | ||
| Targets and Target Spectra: Does SDA envision Above the Horizon (ATH) capability when pointed off-nadir, and if so, for what types of vehicles? | Above the Horizon (ATH) capability is not envisioned with this system necessarily for target tracking purposes, but will become part of the NDSA architecture beyond T0 as technologies and capabilities mature. However, ATH capability will be required for routine sensor calibration and this requirement is specified in the draft Technical Requirements Document (TRD). | |
| Regarding “two adjacent planes” as called out in TRD LO-3: | ||
| Does SDA envision plane A having four nodes and the adjacent plane B also having four nodes arranged so the plans can communicate via cross-plane satellite links? | SDA envisions Tracking layer satellites in adjacent planes to maximize stereo coverage capability. Notionally, it will be up to 4 satellite vehicles (SV) per plane, but the requirement is to utilize the adjacent planes to maximize stereo coverage for potential targets of opportunity. The SVs will also have cross-link capability for both in-plane (threshold) and cross-plane (objective) cross-links. | |
| There are multiple requirements that have threshold and objective levels (# of OISLs, some Payload TRD requirements). Meeting objective level requirements could significantly drive complexity and cost. How should contractors consider this trade in the context of the evaluation criteria (in which schedule and cost are most important)? | The evaluation criteria specifies schedule is the top priority and will be given the greatest weight. There is tradespace between threshold and objective values and greater technical performance is beneficial, however, it is important to refer to the SOW introduction to clarify the goal (minimally essential...operational capability): "sufficient or "good enough" capabilities in the hands of the warfighter sooner is better than delivering the perfect solution too late." Threshold requirements are the minimally acceptable solution and must be met. Proposals that fail to meet any threshold requirements will be considered technically deficient. | |
| Is there an objective Payload FOV that SDA is interested in, greater than 50 deg? | The technical requirements document (TRD) specifies that the minimal (threshold) value is 50 degrees for the payload FOV. However, it allows for greater unquantified objective FOV by specifying that the FOV should be "at least" 50 degrees. The government's intent is to understand how to minimize the number of satellites required to provide global coverage from the constellation while providing design flexibility. | |
| Scope and Description states "up to 8" is the number of satellites to "design, fabricate, assemble and test". Is there a minimum? | While there is no specified minimum number of satellites, the objective for the T0 tranche of the tracking layer is to provide maximum stereo coverage capability to track potential targets of opportunity. The government intends to select two providers for a nominal order of 4 SVs each for the Tracking Tranche 0. However, the government reserves the right to either select a single provider or select two providers with a varying number of SVs to be delivered. | |
| To offer the most efficient pricing, is there a minimum number of vehicles that each award will contain? | Nominally, the government anticipates issuing two contracts for 4 satellites to each of 2 vendors. However, the government reserves the option to award the number of satellites to vendors in a way that best utilizes the funding available and meet the objectives of the demonstration. | |
| Given the SDA announcement of the Tracking Layer DRFP on LinkedIn, is the SDA Tracking Layer going to be the follow-on to HBTSS Phase 2-A, or is there a different relationship between the two programs? | The SDA Tracking layer Wide Field of View (WFOV) RFP is not a follow-on or substitute for the MDA HBTSS program. | |
| Is the on-orbit checkout in SOW section 2.5 expected to be performed from the government operations facility or is the offeror free to propose performing this at a site of their choosing and transitioning control to the government operations facility at a later date? | The on-orbit checkout will be performed in a government facility. The mission data analysis will be done in a government facility, and may be made available for analysis at a contractor facility. | |
| SOW section 2.2, item 36 reads "Maintain awareness of other SDA-funded tracking experiments for applicability and/or utility to the T0 WFOV design". Will we be receiving design documents for these programs, and on what schedule? Will there be opportunity for TEMs or a working group to maintain visibility between programs? | The government is funding 2 WFOV payload development efforts. SDA is funding one is with Goodrich in Danbury, CT. The other is being funded by DARPA. While detailed designs will not be made available, CONOPS, TTPs, and mission data will be made available to inform the contractors' designs. Additionally, the SDA is investing in several cross link demonstrations. The companies, results, and capabilities will be made available to the vendors. | |
| NSA approved encryption equipment is required to be used for satellite-to-satellite and satellite-to-ground communication links. Will encryption equipment be provided GFE? | Crypto boxes will not be provided as GFE. | |
| The Government has specified the bandpass for the sensor to be the SWIR or SWSTG. Is the Government open to other bands? | The government is open to and will evaluate solutions that utilize supplementary IR bands to complement and enhance payload capability with the understanding of the priority of schedule, price, and technical as described within the evaluation factors. | |
| Does the Government have a desire to see proposals ranging from a large system level tracking solution as well as smaller/more specific component within the tracking layer? | The government is requesting integrated Spave Vehicles (SV) that can support the Tracking Layer objectives. In the proposal, the offerors should make sure to address the specifications described in the Technical Requirements Document and SOW, in accordance with the Proposal Instructions, which may best be addressed by subsystem. | |
| What will be the expected turn-around time for the final RFP submittal? | The RFP request is expected to allow 30 days for a response. | |
| Section 1.1 of the SOW states, “In T0, two (2) programs will collaborate in the tracking layer: a WFOV program focusing on technologies necessary to populate a proliferated LEO constellation and a Medium Field of View (MFOV) program focusing on technologies necessary for additional performance. …both sets of satellites will provide complementary mission data to C2 and operational interfaces.” These statements in the Draft RFP leaves some open CONOPS questions: |
1. Will the MFOV and WFOV platforms talk to each other?
2. Will the BMC3 Module process data from both sensors?
3. Will the WFOV provide cueing for the MFOV sensor?
4. In either case, will SBIRS cue both the WFOV as well as the MFOV sensor?
The WFOV system may communicate with the MFOV system through the ground operations center. The WFOV system may provide cueing and track handoff to the MFOV system via the ground system. Track fusion between WFOV and MFOV systems may be demonstrated on the ground.
The BMC3 module in T0 will provide basic functionality and may process data from WFOV or MFOV sensors.
SBIRS will not provide a machine-to-machine cue to the WFOV or MFOV sensor.
| Section 1.1 of the SOW states that the T0 WFOV program will “Integrate with a proliferated Transport Layer to provide tracking information directly over tactical data links.” | ||
| 1. Under what circumstances should Tranche 0 Tracking Layer assets send mission data directly through the Ka-band link? | The Tracking Layer T0 systems shall downlink mission data as scheduled directly through the Ka-band link when there is access to SDA provided ground antennas. The mission data would consist of both processed data (primary) and raw sensor data (secondary). Similarly, the Tracking Layer T0 systems shall be capable of sending mission data as scheduled overal optical downlinks. | |
| LO-5: Mission Class. Requirement: The space vehicles shall be class C, per NASA NPR 8705.4 as tailored per government approval. Will the Government consider proven flight hardware parts and/or up-screening? | The Government will cosnider proven flight hardware parts and/or up-screening as long as the SV meets minimum class C requirements in accordance with the TRD | |
| AOC-2: Pointing Modes. Requirement: The space vehicles shall be compatible with the following pointing modes: Nadir and Ram Fixed (for mission operations), Earth-Centered Fixed (for cued operations), Off-Earth Inertial Point/Track (for star collects), Sun Pointing (for solar array charging), Safe. | ||
| Explanation/Justification: The OPIR sensors may be body-fixed to their space vehicles, and thus pointed via bus slewing. In-plane crosslinks are assumed to have stable links for mission operations, precluding yaw steering. Yaw flips at the poles are permissible. Off-earth pointing may break in-plane links. | Yaw-steering is permisable provided the in-plane crosslinks connection can be maintained during the yaw-steering maneuver. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .