SSO Small Explorer Acquistion.
Science Support Office: Explorer Acquisition
SMEX 2007 Announcement of Opportunity
Draft AO Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Q1: What is the correct e-mail address for sending questions?
A1: smexao@nasa.gov.Q2: In Section 4.4.1, it says that SMEX missions will be classified as Class D missions under NPR 8705.4, but that there will be specific
tailoring requirements. What does this mean?
A2: NASA will set additional requirements on the mission above those that define Class D in NPR 8705.4. These additional requirements will be
provided in the SMEX Mission Assurance Requirements document in the EPL as soon as that document is available but no later than release of the
SMEX AO. An outline of those additional requirements may be found in the presentation titled "SMEX Mission Classification: Tailored Class D."
- + View Presentation: SMEX Mission Classification: Tailored Class D
- + View Presentation: PI Experience Requirements
Q3: Does the NASA procured launch vehicle lift capability of up to 345 kg refer to the total lifted payload and if so what sort of mass and inner
volume should we assume for the fairing?
A3: The lift capacity of up to 345 kg for a low earth orbit launch refers to the entire payload. The inner dimensions of the payload fairing in cm|in are:
- Without supplemental propulsion
- From separation plane (10.0|4.0) to 110.0|43.3 cylindrical with a diameter of 116.8|46.0
- From 110.0|43.3 to 212.9|83.8 tapered from a diameter of 116.8|46.0 to a diameter of 76.0|29.9
- With supplemental propulsion
- From separation plane (10.0|4.0) to 83.3|32.8 cylindrical with a diameter of 116.8|46.0
- From 83.3|32.8 to 186.2|73.3 tapered from a diameter of 116.8|46.0 to a diameter of 76.0|29.9
LAUNCH VEHICLE QUESTIONS
Q4: Will NASA consider greater flexibility in Launch Vehicle choice for the 2012-2014 SMEXs?
A4: No, there is no choice for launch vehicles. NASA is providing a single launch vehicle. The cost of the launch vehicle is not included in the cost for the proposer
therefore it is not available for trading or negotiating. The launch vehicle details will be posted in the EPL.
Q5: Will NASA allow secondary launches for SMEX missions if contributed with a firm commitment from an external partner?
A5: No. Secondary launches entail schedule and other risks that NASA is not willing to accept for SMEX missions.
Q6: We cannot find any reference in the AO describing what mass constraints might exist for this mission. Do you have any information
about the mass constraints or which launch vehicle you plan to use?
Q7: It appears that that the Minotaur launch vehicles offered through Orbital Sciences are precluded as an option for a SMEX mission.
The Minotaurs provide greater capability than the Pegasus and at considerable cost savings to NASA. Will the Agency consider greater flexibility in LV choice
for the 2012-2014 SMEXs?
A6 and A7: NASA intends to procure a single launch vehicle with the following capabilities. For a Low Earth Orbit launch, 28.5 degree inclination, 600 km, the lift
capability is up to 345 kg. For a Sun Synchronous Orbit launch, 90 degree inclination, 600 km, the lift capability is up to 250 kg. The AO will not specify specific
launch vehicles. Launch vehicle details will be posted in the EPL. No other launch vehicle is permitted.
Q8: Sections 4.4.3 and 5.2 -- "standard services will be provided at no charge against the PI Mission Cost. Mission unique and special
launch services must be budgeted for within the proposed PI Mission Cost." Can the Explorers Program be more specific here? The only non-standard services
priced out in the ELV document in the SMEX Library are the Kwajalein launch site and supplemental propulsion, with nuclear launch approval just noted (not priced).
How are proposers supposed to know how much to budget for any other mission unique services they might need?
A8: More costing information will be provided in the launch vehicle document in the EPL.
PI EXPERIENCE REQUIREMENT QUESTIONS
Q9: The AO states that if a proposed PI does not meet the criteria for the position of PI, the proposal will be judged non-compliant
returned without review. Given this high threshold, we recommend that the PI be allowed to document his/her experience at the time of the Notice of Intent so that
a “pre-screening” can be performed so that PIs who do not meet the criteria can be notified at that time.
A9: NASA will provide pre-screening for PI minimum experience requirements beginning in early July. See notice on the SMEX Additional Information Page
at http://explorers.larc.nasa.gov/SMEX/smexacq.html.
Q10: Will you be providing guidelines regarding what are the minimum qualifications are for the Project Manager position?
If so, by when?
A10: The roles and responsibilities of the Project manager are described in Sections 3.1.3 and 3.2.1 of NPR 7120.5D, NASA Space Flight Program and Project
Management Requirements. Appendix H of the SMEX AO will be revised to include these roles and responsibilities. The revised text for Appendix H is available
on the SMEX Additional Information Page at http://explorers.larc.nasa.gov/smexacq.html.
Q11: In view of the importance of the airborne program as an incubator for leaders of the infrared community and of the large investment
being made in SOFIA, we suggest that experience as the PI or Deputy PI of a major airborne instrument should also qualify for the role of PI on a competed
NASA mission.
A11: A PI is expected to have experience with space projects. Development of airborne or ground-based instruments provides some of the minimum experience
required, but does not provide experience developing projects for space.
Q12: Section 4.5.1 refers to a mission chief scientist, but there is no role statement for this position in Appendix H. We recommend that
such a role statement be included in the Appendix. Included in this description should be a clarification of whether serving as a Mission Chief Scientist provides the
requisite experience to be a PI on a future mission.
A12: Each proposed project may assign duties to its senior scientific staff as appropriate; this includes the Mission Chief Scientist if there is one. If the Mission
Chief Scientist has the roles and responsibilities described in Appendix H, then carrying out those roles and responsibilities will provide the requisite experience
to be a PI on a future mission.
Q13: The requirement that the mission PI have prior experience as a mission PI, deputy PI, PS, etc. must be clarified to include instrument PIs.
A13: Section 4.5.1 states that serving as the PI for “a qualifying space project” can provide necessary experience, and that “a qualifying space project can be … an
instrument ….” Appendix H states that it is applicable to “PI-led projects of varying sizes that involve the development of space hardware, from a suborbital project,
to an instrument, to a mission.”
Q14: : In section 4.5.1 the title "mission chief scientist" appears. How is this intended to be different from a Project Scientist?
A14: Each proposed project may assign duties to its senior scientific staff as appropriate; this includes the Mission Chief Scientist if there is one. Appendix H clearly
states that “For smaller projects, the Project Scientist role carries other titles including Instrument Scientist and Experiment Scientist.”
Q15: For PI experience, does the exact titles held (as opposed to job function) carry any weight? Would someone who has had the
appropriate title (regardless of actual responsibilities) automatically qualify, while those who did not have such a title need to justify that they held an equivalent position?
A15: The AO has been revised. Roles and responsibilities establish experience not the title. The revised text is available on the SMEX Additional Information Page
at http://explorers.larc.nasa.gov/smexacq.html.
Q16: Would it be possible for NASA to pre-qualify people?
A16: NASA will provide pre-screening for PI minimum experience requirements beginning in early July. See notice on the SMEX Additional Information Page
at http://explorers.larc.nasa.gov/smexacq.html.
Q17: It is not clear to me what level of detail is requested in Table B7. The table is quite small while Appendix B.I.7 seems to indicate
that close to a page of details are requested. Will supporting evidence be requested?
A17: Table B7 and the instructions in Appendix B part I.7 have been revised to provide clearer instructions and to allow for more detailed responses. The revised
text is available on the SMEX Additional Information Page at http://explorers.larc.nasa.gov/smexacq.html. No supporting evidence
is being requested to validate the information provided in Table B7. Please note that experience in all four areas – leadership, planning, implementation, approval – as
described in Appendix H, must be demonstrated by completing all sections of Tabel B7.
Q18: For PI experience, does "authority" mean contractual authority?
A18: Authority is not limited to contractual authority. Many individuals working on a project have delegated authority from the PI over technical, programmatic, and
other aspects of a project. Similarly responsibilities are not limited to responsibilities to NASA. Everyone working on a project is responsible to someone and,
ultimately, to the PI.
Q19: While this is partly outside of NASA’s control, several institutions have restrictions on who may be PI on a proposal. This is likely to
lead to situations where one person at an institution is eligible under NASA rules but not under internal rules and another person under internal rules but not under
NASA rules. Would it be possible for NASA to accommodate this situation by, for example, having someone else than the PI be the person with the experience?
A19: NASA’s AO is open to all institutions. It is the proposing institution’s prerogative who they appoint as PI of their proposal. However NASA requires that the PI be
responsible for the success of the investigation and, therefore, that the PI meet specific minimum experience requirements.
Q20: The AO states that “Depending on the availability of proposals of appropriate merit, NASA intends to select three SMEX missions,
the first one to launch by late 2011 or 2012, the second one to launch by 2013, and the third one to launch by April 30, 2014.” If a mission is proposed to launch in
late 2011 but is not selected to launch until 2014, will bridge funding be available to cover the gap? Section 5.5 refers to a four-month bridge phase, but this may be
insufficient coverage for a mission whose launch is two years later than originally proposed.
A20: A slow beginning to phase B (reduced funding during the schedule stretch period following downselect) will be approved for the second and third missions. NASA will
negotiate a revised funding profile with the selected missions.
Q51: Can a PI who has had experience in one of the jobs described in the AO (Appendix H) fail the PI experience compliance check if he/she fails to
demonstrate appropriate experience in any of the areas spelled out in Table B7?
A51: Yes. Prospective PI's should follow the instructions provided by NASA to fill out Table B7, clearly listing their responsibilities in each area so as to demonstrate the experience in that area.
COST RELATED QUESTIONS
Q21: Page B-14 1st paragraph, “The rows in Tables B3 and B4 may be modified as appropriate for the proposal”. Can the rows
(cost element labels) in the required tables be changed to the Project’s proposed WBS element cost and so eliminate the “WBS Cost Table” and
consolidate tables?
A21: Rows in Tables B3 and B4 can modified as needed to fit the project but not completely replaced. The level of detail required in Tables B3 and B4 is greater
than would normally be provided by the WBS Cost Table since this later table has to follow the standard space flight project WBS defined in Appendix G
of NPR 7120.5D up to level 2 (Section 4.5.2 of the AO).
Q22: Page 14 Section 4.6.1 Full Cost Accounting: The AO states that “Corporate G&A estimates, Center Management and Operations
(CM&O) estimates, and allocated service pools, which are not paid with SMD Explorer Program funds are not to be included in the proposal cost. “ It appears that
proposals from entities (NASA Centers) who do not have to include these costs will have a cost advantage over proposals from entities whose estimates include
their G&A and organizational management costs. As the AO is currently written there is a built in inequity from a rate standpoint. Please explain how the review
process will accommodate those who include these costs and those who exclude these costs in order to have a level playing field.
A22: SMD’s objective is to get the most science out of its budget. Therefore, SMD is soliciting the best proposals possible for $105M of SMD Explorer Program funds.
All costs that must be funded with SMD Explorer Program funds must be included in the PI mission cost. Since CM&O costs are not paid for with SMD funds, it is not
necessary to include them within the PI mission cost. This is not an evaluation criterion.
Q23: In section 5.4.1, the AO states “In particular, the selection of one or more Missions of Opportunity with funding requirements prior to
Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 will affect NASA’s ability to support these launch dates.” Does this imply that preference will be given to Missions of Opportunity which do
not require funding until after 2013?
A23: No, there is no preference given. The schedule for SMEX mission launches under this AO are anticipated to be late 2011 or 2012 (first mission), 2013
(2nd mission) and NLT 4/30/2014 (third mission). Any MO submitted that requires funding prior to 2013 will affect NASA’s ability to support these anticipated
launch dates for the three SMEX launches. The total funding required for all selected missions will have to conform to the available Explorer Program budget profile.
Q24: In the final AO, will there be a fiscal year funding profile, including reserves, that proposers must adhere to?
A24: No, NASA will not provide a funding profile.
Q25: For the past few Explorer mission proposal cycles, NASA has selected multiple proposals for Phase A (in this case 6-8), and then,
after a four month (funded) Phase A during which the Phase A team develops and submits a Concept Study Report, has left the Phase A team hanging during an
unfunded period of about 4-5 month before initiation of bridge contracts for the three selected missions. This 'start, stop, and possibly continue' scenario is particularly
difficult for small organizations or university research labs. After the completion of Phase A, there are no internal funds available to retain the staff that is needed for
the Phase A study so no new staff can be hired to man the Phase A project.
A25: Phase A does not end when the Concept Study Report is submitted, Phase A continues through the evaluation and site visit process and ends at down select.
The proposer is permitted to manage the mission spending through Phase A. It is not necessary to expend all funds prior to submission of the Concept Study Report.
Q26: Given that the requirements for the timing on release of unencumbered reserve have changed to 30% at time of confirmation
(end of Phase B), is there a target % value that would be deemed acceptable at the time the AO response is submitted and at the end of the Phase A study?
Will a proposal be deemed non-responsive if the AO response can show only 30% unencumbered reserve?
A26: Section 4.6.4 and Section 5.5 state that 30% on the cost to complete is the required unencumbered reserve at the end of Phase A as well as other milestones.
A proposal that shows this required reserve would not be considered non-responsive.
Q27: In section 5.4.1 three launch slots are available and a particular date should be proposed for. If a later date or even slot than the
desired one is chosen by NASA, this could lead to cost growth, likely beyond that accounted for by inflation. Should any statements about the cost implications of
that be included? Similarly cost growth can be incurred due to non-optimal funding profiles.
A27: Although NASA expects to select and launch three SMEX missions, and the launches must be spread in time in order to support total spending for all missions
within the available Explorer Program budget, there are no particular launch dates that must be proposed to. Each proposal must specify the launch date. NASA will
negotiate a new funding profile within the PI mission cost cap with the proposer if the launch date selected by NASA is different from the one proposed. NASA will
ask for impacts of a later launch as a part of the Phase A concept study.
Q28: : Does the "not to exceed one-half of the PI Mission Cost" contribution restriction refer to 50% of the "Real Year" PI Mission Cost or
50% of the "FY 2008" PI Mission Cost? These thresholds are significantly different. (Section 4.6.4 and Section 6.5)
A28: (Reference should be to Section 5.4.3.) The Mission Cost Cap is specified only in FY2008 dollars (see Section 5.4.2). Therefore the value of the contribution should
be calculated in FY2008 dollars and must be less than 50% of the proposed PI Mission Cost. Please note that Section 5.4.3 states that the contribution limit is 50% of the
Mission PI Cost, not 50% of the Mission PI Cost cap. This is to ensure that NASA is responsible for at least 2/3 of the mission.
Q29: : Does the suggested 30% of B/C/D/E/F "cost to complete" reserve suggestion refer to the "PI Mission Cost" only or does it include "Contributions"
and/or "SEO" activities also? (Section 5.5)
A29: The 30% reserves on cost to go should be calculated on those items that are included in the cost to go. The NASA cost for contributions is zero, so the cost to go is zero,
therefore it is not necessary to carry reserves on contributions. (Note: This is separate from any funds that are budgeted to mitigate the risk of depending on a contribution, see
Section 4.5.5.) If an SEO is proposed, then 30%reserves must be included on the SEO. (Note: the SEO cost is outside of the Mission PI Cost, see Section 4.3.2.)
Q30: Can NASA restrict 30% reserves to the phase B/C/D costs only and not to phase E and F, where 10% or 15% reserves have traditionally been used ?
A30: NASA expects the proposer to demonstrate a minimum unencumbered cost reserve against the cost to complete of 30% for Phases B-F. The reserve requirement for the Mission of
Opportunity (MO) is the same as other Explorers missions. NASA has found that PI-led missions have traditionally under costed operations resulting in cost growth after launch and is
requiring higher reserves for operations. Thus 30% reserve is required for Phase E as well.
Q31: Does the pre B/C Confirmation spending limit of 25% of the total PI Mission Cost refer to the Real Year Total or to the total stated in fiscal year 2008 dollars?
(Section 5.5)
A31: Spending limits are in real year dollars.
Q32: The Phase A concept study limit is set at $750K in Real Year Dollars and "is included in the PI Mission Cost cap", however the PI Mission Cost cap is stated in
fiscal year 2008 dollars. Does this mean that for missions with a Phase A starting in a year other than 2008 that the concept study cap must be adjusted, or do these missions adjust their
PI Mission Cost caps by the amount of the change due to inflation in the concept study limit? It would be less confusing if both the PI Mission Cost cap and the concept study limit were in
the same units. (Section 5.5 and in the Forward)
A32: Spending limits are in real year dollars. A conversion table is provided in Table B6. Also, Phase A starts in May 2008 (see schedule in AO); NASA is not soliciting proposals that
anticipate a Phase A at some other time. (Note: The Mission Cost Cap is only for the purpose of limiting the size of proposed missions. The NASA budget is appropriated by Congress
in real year dollars, and all spending plans must be in real year dollars.)
Q50: Is funded schedule reserve a part of the 30% reserve required in the AO? In other words, (total budget reserve + funds associated with schedule reserve)/(total PI cost excluding budget and schedule reserves) = 30%
A50: Yes. For the purpose of this AO, an adequate unencumbered reserve on the PI Mission Cost is measured against the cost to complete through Phases A/B/C/D/E/F and is at least 30% which
includes adequate funded schedule reserve.
OTHER QUESTIONS
Q33: Should any effort be expended in the Step 1 proposal to prioritize proposed descopes?
A33: Yes. The descope plan is evaluated as an element of robustness.
Q34: D.6.c -- Can the Explorers Program please define what it means by "...shortest time possible"?
A34: Not all missions are the same therefore the PI team should release data as quickly as they can and not delay to meet an arbitrary schedule.
Q35: Can you provide guidance regarding how the TMCO evaluation will be tailored in light of the Class D mission designation?
A35: Changes in classification such as tailoring do not warrant changes in TMCO evaluation. All proposals will be evaluated against AO requirements.
Q36: If a proposal team gets a letter of commitment from another U.S. government agency, can the letter be addressed to
Mike Griffin, or does it have to be addressed to the P.I.?
A36: Yes, the letter may be addressed to Mike Griffin, if that is what the PI decides.
Q37: NASA increase the time for Phase A studies from 4 months to at least 6 months.
A37: NASA has made a goal to downselect the final missions approximately one year after the proposal due date for the SMEX AO. For this reason the
Phase A concept study period has been fixed as 4 months.
Q38: Could you provide some guidance on which participants would be considered non-critical.
A38: “Critical participants”: those participants who are assigned to tasks considered by the PI to be critical to the success of the mission, including
those who provide unique required services. All other participants are non-critical.
Q39: Can you add the NPR on Systems Engineering Process and Requirements (NPR 7123.1A) to the EPL.
A39: All NASA documents can be accessed through the NASA Online Directives Information System (NODIS). The URL is: http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/.
In particular, NPR 7123.1A can be found on: http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?t=NPR&c=7123&s=1A.
Q40: Describe how the SMEX development process should be tailored for a class-D mission.
A40: The Explorer Program office is finalizing the appropriate documentation on this, and it will be placed in the EPL as soon as it is approved.
Q41: A six-month operational lifetime is often associated with a Class-D mission. Can a mission lifetime longer than six months be proposed for a Class-D SMEX mission,
consistent with applicable cost guidelines?
A41: There is no limit on mission lifetime. The only limit is on total mission cost (sets maximum lifetime) and the time it takes to meet the science objective of the mission (sets minimum lifetime).
Q42: Given SMEX launch dates are staggered, can you name the same Project Manager for several SMEX proposals?
A42: The same Project Manager can be named for several SMEX Proposals. There should be a fall back plan if more than one mission is selected.
Q43: Since many PIs will not have sufficient knowledge of what is required to implement technical assistance agreements and/or international agreements from a schedule
point of view, NASA must provide an example of an "adequate and realistic schedule" for the execution of international agreements. Then PIs will be able to provide for such activities in their proposed
mission development schedule. Otherwise, NASA has created a schedule risk item.
A43: Unfortunately, the timeline for completing international agreements (IAs) and technical assistance agreements (TAAs) can vary by complexity of the cooperation and the foreign partner involved.
For agency-to-agency IAs, NASA strives to if at all possible have at least an interim agreement in place within six months of final selection. A permanent IA will always be in place by launch.
Note that NASA will not attempt to put IAs in place during a Phase A competition, only after the final down select. For TAAs, since these are not NASA controlled documents, but rather an agreement
between the contractor, foreign partner and U.S. State Department, NASA has little to no influence on this process or the length of time it may take to get the TAA approved. At a minimum one should
plan for 3-6 months for a TAA, but perhaps longer. Unlike the NASA IAs, however, the TAAs can be begun as early as one wishes, even before competition/selection if it is deemed necessary.
QUESTIONS RELATED TO MISSIONS OF OPPORTUNITY
Q44: In Section 6.2 describing Partner Missions of Opportunity, the AO states that “The proposing PI must provide evidence that the sponsoring organization intends to fund the
primary host mission…” What constitutes evidence of the intention to fund the mission?
A44: Letter of commitment from host mission sponsor and/or funding agency.
Q45: The current draft AO seems to exclude a certain class of Partner Missions of Opportunity (MOs) which would be of considerable benefit to NASA and the U.S. science
community. This class of partner MOs have a U.S. contribution which increases the science return of all investigations undertaken by the non-SMD mission as opposed to providing unique new science
from a U.S.-provided on-board instrument. Are such partner MOs which increase the overall mission science return allowed?
A45: Yes. The AO does not exclude such partner MO’s.
Q46: How does NASA want us to document in our proposal that our non-US partner is launching the payload to ISS without a contribution to the launch resources from NASA?
A46: Get a letter of commitment from the non-US partner.
Q47: For MO proposals, the draft AO states: “The proposing PI must provide evidence that the sponsoring organization intends to fund the primary host mission and that the
commitment by NASA for U.S. participation is required by the sponsoring organization by December 31, 2012. The launch date itself is not constrained. If a commitment from NASA is not needed by
the sponsoring organization by December 31, 2012, then the proposal must be submitted to a subsequent Explorer Program AO.” If the primary mission is still in study phase and the sponsoring organization
is not in a position to issue a letter of commitment for flight of that mission, what evidence should the MO proposer provide of the sponsoring organization’s intent to fund the primary mission?
A47: The proposal and any letter from the primary mission sponsor should include the schedule for a decision being made on the host mission.
Q48: For Mission of Opportunity proposals to participate in ISS missions, will it be acceptable if the non-US partner provides launch resources to launch the payload, using no
launch resources belonging to NASA?
A48: Yes. Note that SMD has no resources or capability for providing upmass to ISS, nor will SMD acquire any such capabilities. Any ISS proposal must include launch services to the ISS from a proposing partner.
Q49: The Draft Explorer AO does not fully address applicability of the Mission of Opportunity program as a means of participating in the Solar Orbiter program. With the ESA call for Solar
Orbiter science investigation proposals anticipated in the Fall of 2007, could you please clarify the selection criteria for Explorer MO proposals directed towards Solar Orbiter investigations.
A49: The Small Explorer (SMEX) AO, planned for release in late September will include two distinct opportunities for providing contributions to the Solar Orbiter science payload. Please see the
“Community Notice on Participation in ESA’s Solar Orbiter Mission” for details.
Related Links
+ SMEX Home
Draft SMEX AO FAQs
Date of Last Update: 09.13.2007
NOTICE: FAQs submitted after release of the SMEX AO are posted at the SMEX AO FAQ page or the FOSO FAQ page.
SMEX QUESTIONS
Q&As will be posted as they are made available.
- NASA Official: Cindy Daniels
- WebsiteCurator: ConITS Development Team
- Last Modified: 03.23.2009