SSO Small Explorer Acquistion.

Science Support Office: Explorer Acquisition

SMEX 2007 Announcement of Opportunity

SMEX AO Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q0: Can a SAIC employee be a PI or Co-I of a proposal submitted in response to the SMEX AO?

A0: No. The AO in section 4.1 states "The NASA contract with Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) for evaluation support under this Announcement of Opportunity creates an unmitigatable organizational conflict of interest for SAIC in the event that any business unit of SAIC has a proposed role as prime contractor, subcontractor, or participating organization. Because of this organizational conflict of interest, SAIC is precluded from participating as an offeror in any capacity under this AO."

Q1: I have a question about the AO requirement on page 37, section 7.3.1 requiring that Table B7 be submitted as a Microsoft Excel file. This has been provided to us a Word file on the SMEX website: "http://explorers.larc.nasa.gov/PreScreening.html". Do we need to convert this to Excel, or can we submit the document in Word format?

A1: No it does not need to be converted, submit Table B7 as a Word, Excel, or PDF file.

Q2: In Section E (beginning on page B-6), there are three separate lists of what needs to appear in the Mission Implementation section. The first such list is embedded in the first paragraph of this section of the appendix (page B-6). The second list is entirely on page B-7, marked with bullet points. The third list is numbered, beginning on the bottom of page B-7, and is described as a list of data that must be identified in tables. Are we free to structure Section E in a way that seems logical to us and easy for the reader, and is independent of the order of all this material as given in this part of Appendix B? Or should we attempt to reproduce the order in which this information is presented in the three lists described above from the Appendix?

A2: Yes, proposers are free to structure each section of their proposal in a way that seems logical to them and easy for the reader, and is independent of the order in which this material was requested in Appendix B of the AO.

Q3: Does the numbered list (starting at the bottom of page B-7) refer explicitly to a list of required tables ("material below must be provided (in tables)"), or is it just another list of material that in general needs to be covered in Section E? We find this difficult to interpret since item 9 ("Technology Development and New Technology") describes a "section" of "discussion", even though it is part of the overall numbered list that was introduced as a list of tables. In other words, is the request really for 9 tables, for 8 tables plus a discussion, or should we divide the information between tables and discussion as we think best?

A3: The data required in the numbered list in Section E of Appendix B of the AO does need to be provided in tables but the number and format of such tables is up to the proposer. This data must also be discussed as appropriate in the corresponding text of the proposal.

Q4: Does one have to include the "launch options" described in Table 1 of the "ELV Launch Services Program Information Summary" in the calculation of mission reserves? We realize we have to include the costs listed in Table 1 as part of the mission costs, but do we then have to include an additional 30% reserve on these costs? The text indicates that these costs are specified in the NASA Launch Services (NLS) contract and are fixed, but it also says that "prices for 2010 launch dates and later are notional and are subject to change", but then adds that "HQ Program should hold reserves to cover unexpected price fluctuations....".

A4: The Explorer Program will hold funding for the launch service costs which includes the launch service, nominal mission unique launch vehicle modifications/services, mission integration, launch site payload processing, range and telemetry support utilizing the LSP’s firm-fixed price NASA Launch Services (NLS) contract which currently does not extend past 2010, hence the variability.

Should the offerer choose a supplemental propulsion system or the Kwajalein launch site as options as indicated in the ELV Launch Services Program Information Summary, Table 1, the offerer must add a 30% reserve to these options.

Q5: The "SMEX General Project Plan", published on October 2, calls for the consolidation of the PDR and CDR in order to accelerate the overall SMEX schedules. Normally, Phase B is defined to end with PDR and Phase C with CDR. The consolidation of the two reviews effectively eliminates the distinction between Phases B and C. However, Table B5 of the AO requires the separation of costs into Phase A/B and Phase C/D. This consolidation also confuses the requirement of a "spending limit of 25% of the total PI Mission Cost prior to entry into Phase C". Do we make our own judgment as to the end of Phase B and the start of Phase C?

A5: For the purpose of budget and cost reserve rules the end of Phase B is reached when the mission passes its Confirmation Review.

Regarding combined PDR/CDR: a smaller mission going through a long two step selection process can achieve more than just a preliminary design for most of the systems by confirmation. The combined PDR/CDR review is a means of taking advantage of this SMEX AO feature so that monies saved in development may be applied to science. We recognize that some technical items may not be at a CDR maturity level by confirmation and those items will be advanced and accepted through the peer review process. The mission technical maturity risk as well as procurement of long lead items will be discussed at the PDR/CDR and factored into the confirmation review.

Regarding blurring of phase B and C: yes some blurring has to take place to take advantage of the combined review concept, but not to the extent the question implies. This is because a regular CDR is held in the first third or first half of phase C and not at the end.

Q6: The NASA Cost Estimating Handbook states that “In Pre-Phase A”…“the most effective cost estimating methodology is either a parametric or analogy cost methodology.” In using these methods, especially parametric, it is difficult to get civil servant FTEs and Contractor WYEs and the corresponding dollars. Also, if grassroots/bottoms-up methodology is used for estimating at this time, it is sometimes hard to predict whether the work will be done by civil servants or support service contractors. Therefore, we are trying to understand the purpose of Table B8 (Full Time Equivalents, Work Year Equivalents, and Effective Direct Costs)? The data would be very preliminary and could change drastically between Step 1 and CSR. We also wish to understand the impact of changing the information on this table between the Step 1 proposal submittal and the CSR submittal.

A6: The information in Table B8 is needed to judge the impact of public/private competitions on the Agency's workforce projections. Table B8 is not required in the CSR, so there is no impact to changing the information provided.

Q7: Paragraph 4.6.1 Full Cost Accounting – Please define "Demand service pools" and "allocated service pools".

A7: Demand service pools as it relates to civil servants are peoples services such as service based on need (i.e., fabrication). Allocated service pools is overhead and G&A (i.e., facilities and information technology)

Q8: Could you please clarify the distinction between Missions of Opportunity which utilize existing spacecraft assets post end-of-mission, and extended missions? Specifically, what type of science (as contrasted to the prime mission science) constitutes new science? What constitutes a "redirection" of the original spacecraft's science mission and is to be avoided as stated in the second bullet of Section 6.3 of the AO?

A8: An extended mission is one which is permitted to continue operation beyond its prime phase in order to enable the kind of science the mission was designed for. A Mission of Opportunity for new science with an existing spacecraft is intended to enable the use of spacecraft which have ended their prime and extended phases, for performing science that the original mission was not designed for. Extending the mission to perform the science that it was designed for is accomplished through the Senior Review process. In general, spacecraft are available for New Science Missions after the Senior Review has determined that no further extensions are appropriate.

Q9: In our proposed spacecraft design, we are planning to make use of the 59 cm (23 inch) standard separation system described in Release 6.0 of the Pegasus User’s Guide. Could you please tell me if there is a difference in launch vehicle performance for this interface compared to using the 97 cm (38 inch) separation system? We are nominally planning a 600 km/28.5 degree inclination circular orbit from the Eastern Range. Alternately, is there a mass difference that we would need to budget on the spacecraft side to account for the adapter cone? Finally, we are interpreting the Launch Service Costs section of the SMEX Expendable Launch Vehicle Services Information Summary document to mean that there would not be an additional cost to use this standard separation system. Can you please confirm if that is correct?

A9: First, please note, while Pegasus XL is one of our leading candidates for the SMEX AO, alternate launch service providers may be available to compete in the timeframe that these missions will contract for launch services. Therefore, there is no guarantee which launch vehicle will be selected for this SMEX launch service.

For your Pegasus XL specific questions:

There is a 4 kg reduction in available spacecraft performance when switching to the 23-inch adapter/sep-system. This system requires a small cone to reduce the diameter from 38" to 23".

Under the NASA Launch Services contract either the 23" or the 38" interface will be provided as part of the standard service.

Q10: What is the minimum inclination available out of Kwajalein, without resorting to a dogleg of the launch vehicle itself (i.e., using the flight of the L-1011 to reduce the inclination from the 9°)? What is the maximum payload mass for such an orbit?

What is the maximum payload mass for an inclination of 0°and 5°?

A10: First, please note, while Pegasus XL is one of our leading candidates for the SMEX AO, alternate launch service providers may be available to compete in the timeframe that these missions will contract for launch services. Therefore, there is no guarantee which launch vehicle will be selected for this SMEX launch service.

For your Pegasus XL specific questions:

There really is no simple answer to these questions, primarily because there are no solutions at this point that go below 9 deg without a dog-leg, Range Safety approval, mobile tracking assets or a combination of the three. Actually, flying directly to 9 deg without a dog-leg is questionable. It would require a substantial amount of work to get approval because there are a number of populated islands to the East of the "nominal" drop point.

It is possible for a Pegasus to be flown to the equator and dropped, therefore attaining a 0 deg inclination without a dog-leg. However, there are currently no fixed assets to track the flight. It would require mobile assets in order to cover all of the flight events that have mandatory coverage. There would also be work required to obtain Range Safety approval, although this would not be as complicated as dropping more closely to the Marshall Islands. The maximum performance for this scenario is approximately 370 kg with a standard Pegasus.

So long as a direct ascent can be achieved, the performance difference between 0 deg and 5 deg is negligible due to the nature of being able to relocate the drop point. Again, there will be a substantial amount of Range Safety work that will be required for many Kwajalein scenarios. Orbital has flown only a small number of missions from Kwajalein, therefore the number of "already-approved" drop points and launch azimuths is limited to about 2-3. If a mission can fly one of the previously approved drop points and azimuths, then the Range Safety work is going to be minimal. However, deviation from that will substantially increase the amount of work required to get approval.

Q11: I see that we're to use the new start inflation index provided in appendix B, but I'm wondering if that inflation rate is to be applied to ALL costs or costs other than personnel. I know in the past we've been able to use our university's inflation factor for personnel costs.

A11: The inflation index chart would be used to determine the PI's total cost for the mission. Internal university personnel inflation costs would be factored into the overall PI cost. Any adjustments for local rates (with justification) would not be made until after selection, prior to confirmation.

Q12: Given that most resources have specified or recommended minimum reserve levels at various Key Decision Points (KDP)s, what is the required minimum level of funded schedule reserve that is required for entry into Phase B and Phase C?

A12:

From Confirmation to delivery to Observatory Integration and Test (I&T): One month per year
From the start of I&T to shipment to launch site (or Planned storage): Two months per year
From delivery to launch site through launch: One week per month.

Q13: Referencing Page 17 of the AO, is ³adequate² cost reserve at the start of Phase C 30%? Or is 30% reserve requirement only at completion of Phase A?

A13: Cost reserves are calculated by using the unencumbered budget reserves divided by the estimated cost-to-go through Phase E expressed as a percentage. The 30% minimum cited in section 4.6.4 of the AO includes the value of the funded schedule reserve.

Q14: In the event of conflicts between the many documents referenced in the AO body and library, what is their order of precedence? For example, the AO itself, the SMEX General Program Plan, the SMEX MAR Requirements, 7120.3B, 7120.5D etc. Is there a document tree that shows the relationships between the various controlling documents?

A14: (a) The SMEX General Project Plan adapts 7120.5D to the SMEX Class D missions so that the work is done for you. The SMEX General Project Plan is a requirements document and will be one of the documents used by TMCO. The order of priority of the items mentioned above is the following:

AO
The SMEX General Project Plan
7120.3B Management PI Mode Missions
The SMEX MAR

(b) There is no document priority tree

Q15: The cap for requiring EVM from a subcontractor is $20M. Is this $20M in FY08 or RY dollars?

A15: The requirement is based on contract value, thus the cap is in Real Year dollars.

Q16: NASA is assuming responsibility for the Launch Vehicle interface. What does that mean in terms of document preparation and safety assessments such as the Missile System Pre-Launch Safety Plan (MSPSP)? Who is responsible for that?

Updated A16: The spacecraft side of the Launch Vehicle interface is the responsibility of the PI team. The Explorers Program will assist the PI with writing the MSPSP. NASA Explorer's Program will provide a Launch Vehicle Integrator (LVI), to expedite and coordinate the PI team with the Launch Services Program. The LVI is the point of contact for the PI Team to the Launch Services Program.

Launch Service Program (LSP) will manage the LV side of the interface, coordinating with the LVI and PI, and LSP will manage the Launch Service Contractor (LSC).

Q17: If NASA were to procure a launch vehicle other than Pegasus XL, when would that decision be made?

A17: All decisions regarding a launch vehicle service for the SMEX AOs will occur during the competitive procurement process, typically 6 - 9 months prior to Confirmation Review and Authority To Proceed after Flight Planning Board approval.

Q18: There are several recent performance enhancements that have been made to the Pegasus XL Launch Vehicle. Why are these performance enhancements not reflected in the performance parameters that are published on the NLS launch site?

A18: The performance enhancements incorporated to date are mission specific solutions. Since these are not offered on the contract as non-standard services or as part of the standard vehicle performance baseline, the performance website does not reflect them.

Q19: The sample contracts contains standard clause for government approved EVMS system, will the sample contract language by modified to reflect the intent of a simplified EVM process? AO 4.4.2 page 10.

A19: The sample contract is just that - "a sample" page 8 section 3.1 paragraph 5 of Project Plan, explicitly cites policy of EVM "required EVM system will be scaled to the PI's institutions capability".

Q20: Does the PI pay for all launch delays including delays outside of the PI's control, I.e. weather, hurricanes?

A20: For SMEX - once launch site schedule reserve has been consumed, NASA assumes $ risk. For Missions of Opportunity, the PI must cover the cost of launch delays.

Q21: It was stated that NASA assumes the work for PRA, FMEA, FTA, and LVI. Do they assume cost as well?

A21: Yes, the Explorer Program pays for the analysis but PI provides input data.

Q22: In regard to work assumed by NASA - probabilistic risk assessment, failure modes and effects analysis, fault tree analysis, launch vehicle interface, if the proposer is a Center, are these items still paid for by the Explorer Program Office?

A22: Yes, and the Explorer Program will still perform this support function.

Q23: How do we reconcile the PI owning mission assurance with the MAR stating that GSFC will have a Parts Control Board?

A23: PI owns and chairs the Parts Control Board (PCB). See 11.2.1 of MAR.

Q24: NASA asserts there are fewer requirements and CDRLs in this AO by making SMEX a Tailored Class D program from what used to be a Class C Program. Yet the Mission Assurance Requirements (MAR) document from the 2003 SMEX AO was 23 pages in length and the current MAR is 146 pages in length. How do you explain this significant increase in the size of this document while claiming that less requirements are being levied on the PI and that a light touch approach is being implemented for this AO?

A24: The MAR is now an instructional document intended to guide the PI in developing the PAIP.

Q25: Do you want to see 30% contingency on the Phase E cost?

A25: Yes, see question 30 in Draft AO FAQs list.

Q26: How do you calculate the 30% reserve? Does the 30% rule apply to the nominal schedule or to the expanded schedule which includes a reserve?

A26: See the answer to question 50 in the Draft AO FAQ list.

Q27: How does the combined PDR/CDR match with traditional Phase B/Phase C endpoints, and with the guideline limiting spending in Phase B?

A27: The 25% commitment limit through confirmation is a guideline. Exceptions will be considered on a case by case basis and must be justified in accordance with the AO 4.6.4 Cost Risk Management and section 5.5 Selection and Cost Limits.

Q28: The SMEX Launch dates in Jim Watzin's presentation were different than the launch dates in the AO. Which is correct?

A28: The dates in Jim Watzin's presentation have been updated to match the AO.

Q29: In Appendix B of the AO, the cost Tables B3, B4, and B5 have a note that says "costs must include all costs including any fee". However, in the Sample Contract Section B.3 stipulate "Cost Contract - No Fee".

A29: Include all fees as required in the AO Appendix B.

Q30: For Missions of Opportunity, does there have to be a concept study period? If schedules do no permit this, can this be omitted?

A30: This is specifically address in 5th paragraph of section 6.1 of the AO.

Q31: How much is the allocated budget of Phase A for MO?

A31: Section 6.5 of the AO, addresses this question. "NASA's funding for a selected investigation's concept study will be between $150K and $300K in real year dollars depending on the scope and cost of the MO."

Q32: Are MO's also prohibited from a secondary payload launch?

A32: No. MO's are not prohibited from secondary payload launches.

Q33: The SMEX AO states that selections for the Phase A concept Studies are to be made in May of 2008. A Presentation at the preproposal conference has dates that say Summer of 2008 and other slides have April 2008 resulting in a span of dates that stretch from April to September. Are selections for Phase A studies being delayed or is the May 2008 date in the AO still valid?

A33: NASA is still shooting for the target date of May 2008. However, if a large number of proposals are received we may be delayed past that date.

Q34: The SMEX AO is adjusting the mission development schedule (16 months to Confirmation PDR/CDR) and limiting the budget to 25% of mission cost (at confirmation) Does the TMC have relevant past experience with this mission model? Is there any preconceived cost or schedule risks with this approach?

A34: GSFC has some past experience with this mission model. The TMC panel membership has not been defined at this time. The TMC panel will evaluate whether the proposed investigation fits in the proposed schedule.

Q35: Is it SMD's intent to select only missions with a Low Risk rating for Phase A implementation studies or will medium risk missions be considered if the science is compelling (Category 1 Science)?

A35: Category I and category II missions are selectable.

Q36: What cost models are used in the TMC review and are these models available to us?

A36: NASA does not know at this time what cost models will be used on this specific review.

Q37: Why are proposing teams barred from asking questions directly to the KSC launch services organization to obtain launch performance values that are not on the website. Why do these questions have to go through NASA Headquarters?

A37: There is one Point Of Contact (POC) listed in the AO. All questions are channeled through NASA HQ so that a coordinated response can be developed and placed on the web.

Q38: In AO sections 4.2, 4.4.1, 4.4.2, 4.6.1: Please clarify if NASA management oversight costs need to be accounted for, and if so, where they are to be book-kept. Are these costs to be included in WBS 1 Project management? If so, with whom do we coordinate to obtain an estimate that can be rolled into our proposal? If these costs are external to the PI mission cost, please indicate which NASA costs fall into that category. For example, how are proposal teams to estimate costs for the items indicated as "work assumed by NASA" in section 4.4.2 (PRA, FMEA, etc), or for the major reviews?

A38: NASA oversight is the responsibility of NASA and will be book kept as such. The cost associated with worked assumed by NASA will not be evaluated against the PI.

Q39: Is it a requirement under the SMEX/AO that the Project Manager be NASA management personnel with a center affiliation? and/or if so could a project office be established off-center with that person in residence?

A39: There is no requirement for the Project Manager to be NASA management personnel. The PI can choose anyone he/she wants to manage the project.

Q40: The SMEX project plan states "EVM reporting begins after the confirmation review". This would imply that EVMS will not need to be applied until the start of Phase C. Is this correct?

A40: The project should be working every effort in making sure he/she will be compliant with the requirements. When the project is confirmed, contracts will be in place and an institutional EVMS is required.

Q41: It¹s assumed that the SMEX project provides the review team for the SRR, PDR/CDR, LRR etc. and it will be held at the proposers site. Is this correct?

A41: The review team is supplied by NASA, the proposer is responsible for supplying and presenting the need project information for the review team. The reviews such as the SRR, PDR/CDR are typically held at the proposer¹s site. The LRR is typically held at a NASA facility.

Q42: The Explorer Program Office says that the PI is responsible for selecting the content choices of the Program Implementation Plan. Does that include choosing what elements of the SMEX Program Plan, its CDRLs, the SMEX MAR and its CDRLs will be implemented? Or are these documents considered as compliance documents that must be implemented as is?

A42: MIP must respond to section 2 and 3 explicitly from the Project Plan and the CDRL's are compliance documents and must be implemented.

Q43: Please clarify the difference between reserve, margin, and contingency. If we determine that our combined spacecraft and instrument mass is X kg, we assume we must carry 30% contingency on this mass. Do we also need margin included in this mass estimate in addition to the 30% contingency?

Updated A43: Definitions are given in Appendix B section E of the SMEX AO. Examples of calculations are provided. Specific requirements for mass, power, and TLM margins as a function of Program Phase are stated in the Gold Rules, Table 1.06-1, page 17. Additional margin is not required for items in the table. Exact figures will depend on your system component maturity and heritage.

Q44: What launch mass margin is appropriate to obtain a Low Risk TMC rating for that resource (not the entire mission rating) 20%, 25%, 30%, 35%?

A44: A Risk rating is not developed for the launch mass margin. A risk rating is only given for the overall proposal. No specific requirements are stated in the AO on mass contingency and margin requirements. Also see answer to Q43.

Q45: In regard to Orbital debris mitigation requirements, is consideration vis-à-vis the 25yr guideline the same (or waveable) for orbits with a period of approximately several hundred years or longer?

A45: Every mission must be compliant to all orbital debris requirements and show how the mission will fulfill the requirement. In this case, the process is necessary to document the mission features, but the detailed piece item analysis may not be applicable.

Q46: If a PI chooses to select a contractor other than NASA to provide mission operations services and that contractor then sub-contracts time from a ground station provider for (antenna) contact time, does the Mission operations service provider need to obtain a commitment letter from the ground station (antenna) provider for placement in the AO response (proposal)?

A46: Yes, to ensure there is commitment from the Mission Operations Service provider.

Q47: The AO states that a SC must be aligned with NASA’s science and/or engineering goals. Do these goals have to be NASA’s Heliophysics and/or Astrophysics goals?

A47: Yes. The SMEX AO is seeking scientific investigations that address NASA’s Heliophysics and/or Astrophysics science goals. The SC must be aligned to these goals and address the science and/or engineering aspects required to achieve these goals.

Q48: NASA asserts there are fewer CDRL deliverables. 58 are quoted, which appear in the program plan - yet there are dozens more which appear in the Mission Assurance Requirements Document (MAR). Why are CDRLs contained in the two documents (perhaps more) and not consolidated in a single document?

A48: Data Item Descriptions (DIDs) as referenced in the SMEX Mission Assurance Requirements (MAR) document describe a specific work task normally performed in the aerospace industry in the development of instrument and spacecraft science missions. The DID words are provided so that all parties understand the task content. The PI's Product Assurance Implementation Plan (PAIP) will address each of the DID's in the MAR either by adopting them as is or suggesting mission suitable modifications along with the supporting rationale. A DID is not a contract deliverable unless it is specified as such within a CDRL document which is in the Contract Delivery Requirements List. One CDRL may reference more than one DID.

Q49: There appears to be a difference between calculations for MO's and full SMEX. Phase E and F appear to be included in the applicable comparisons sum of the pre-phase C spending limit restrictions for MO's but not for Full SMEX. (AO page 32 paragraph 6 line 3 compared to page 27)

A49: You are correct, there is a difference.

Q50: For some MO's there are several launch options all of which have different implications for Orbital Debris Assessment. Is it possible to get a waiver for the requirement. What is the best way to handle higher orbit options (which should be risk mitigating rather than increasing?)?

A50: All objects launched into space in which NASA has lead or partial involvement with control over design or operations via U.S internal or international partnership agreements, including the launch vehicle must be compliant with NPR 8715.

Q51: I want to propose a partner MO where my responsibility is to participate in the analysis of data from a non-SMD mission. I will be providing expertise in a critical area of the mission because the non-SMD mission team does not have the science expertise that I would bring to the mission. Would this be compliant with the SMEX MO?

A51: No. Partner MOs are ones where NASA agrees to provide a contribution to a mission sponsored by someone else. The AO states that NASA participation could be "providing a complete science instrument, hardware components of a science instrument, or expertise in critical areas of the mission." The key is "critical areas of the mission." This means mission critical. Non flight hardware critical areas could be ground systems, pipeline data processing and archiving, communications, etc. Mission critical has never been intended to be science analysis.

You are proposing to analyze data from a non-SMD mission. We have never allowed proposals for "participating scientists" or "data analysis" or "science co-I" as Partner MOs in Explorer AOs before. Such activities are often solicited through ROSES. The Explorer AOs solicit flight programs, not data analysis programs. The kind of investigation that you have described does not fall among the types of investigations that NASA is soliciting in the Explorer AO.

Q52: I want to propose a MO (not sure of it is a partner MO or a New Science Mission MO). Another agency is launching a satellite that will take measurements of great science value to NASA. This agency will only operate the mission for a short period of time. I want to propose that NASA take over operations and create a new NASA mission from an existing non-NASA mission. What kind of MO would this be?

A52: NASA is not soliciting proposals where NASA takes over responsibility for a non-NASA spacecraft after the sponsoring agency has completed its funded mission.

A New Science Mission MO requires that the proposed investigation use "an existing NASA space asset to conduct a new science investigation." This is not an existing NASA space asset.

A Partner MO is one where NASA participates in the development of a non-SMD mission by making a contribution to the mission. The AO states that NASA participation could be "providing a complete science instrument, hardware components of a science instrument, or expertise in critical areas of the mission." Providing the funding to operate a mission does not fall within these categories.

Q53: What is meant by the EVMS wording in the AO "The required EVM system will be scaled to the PI Institution's capability" & "The required EVM system is tailorable to the PI Institution's capability"

A53: The PI Institution will be responsible for implementing a system that meets the intent of the EVM requirement. That is a cost, schedule and milestone tracking system that provides sufficiently detailed data to adequately and quantitatively asses the current progress of the mission on a monthly basis, and provide a forecast for accomplishing work to be completed within the remaining established cost and schedule parameters.

Q54: The SMEX General Project Plan, provided in the Explorers library, contains requirements for SMEX missions. This document has not been signed and has no effective date. Is this plan to be treated as a requirement document with the assumption that it will be approved as is and as such will the TMCO be evaluating the proposals based on this reference document?

A54: The SMEX General Project Plan adapts 7120.5 D to the SMEX Class D missions so that the work was done for you. The exceptions to 7120.5 D that the SMEX Plan incorporates will be formalized by NASA upon signature of that document and that activity is in work now. The SMEX Plan is a requirements document and will be one of the documents used by TMCO. The order of priority of the items mentioned here therefore is 1. the AO, 2. The SMEX General Project Plan, 3. 7120.3B Management of PI Mode Missions, and 4. the MAR. There is no document priority tree.

Q55: It is our understanding that the Explorer Program Office is going to pay for peer reviewers in peer reviews to subsidize a combined PDR/CDR. Is there any limit on the number of peer reviews to make up for the number of reduced mission reviews. Can we have all the peer reviews we want?

A55: NASA pays for the members of the Standing Review Board who participate in the major project reviews. See Major Reviews, page 20 in the SMEX Class D General System Review Plan. Peer reviews are informal reviews implemented by the PI or his technical lead. They will be composed of a few technical experts and will summarize the review in a report for the SRB. Peer reviews are paid for by the PI and are in his cost cap. See Technical Peer Reviews, page 27, in the SMEX Class D General System Review Plan.

Q56: At the pre-proposal conference you made it clear what reviews and what parts of the Project Plan were required for SMEX missions. I am unclear however, what parts of the Plan apply to MOs. For instance, what reviews are required? The chart on page 27 of the SMEX General Project Plan is for SMEXs. What does it look like for MOs. Similarly, what are the CDRLs for a MO?

A56: A Mission of Opportunity can range in complexity from a complete mission of $70M, or a complex instrument of $70 M down to a $5M instrument or less. Therefore the answer to this question has a range depending on the type of MO it is.

An MO mission can be a straight Class D out of NPR8705.4 Appendix B, and not a tailored SMEX Class D per the July 10th SMD letter. The timeline, type of reviews, and deliverables remain in place. However, the PI may propose reasonable alternatives and include that in his/her MIP and PAIP documents for our consideration.
For a MO instrument, the workmanship quality, design reviews, and deliverable documentation shall be consistent with the host mission requirements whatever that may be. A less extensive MIP and PAIP document is still required for this AO so that all parties can agree to the processes and scope of the work being provided.

Q57: Page format requirements: are there specifications for the page margins, headers, and footers?

A57: There are no specific margin, headers or footer requirements called out in the AO, however the proposer must make certain there is enough room for binding and allowances for duplicating the information.

Q58: Is it allowed under this AO to contract for services from not-for-profit science management corporations which operate under a Cooperative Agreement with the National Science Foundation (NSF)?

A58: Yes, the contributions must be compliant with Appendix B of the SMEX AO.

Q59: Do MOs need to discuss a Minimum Science Mission with descope options, or do they just present the baseline mission?

A59: Yes, MOs need to discuss a Minimum Science Mission with descope Options.

Q60: Do the personal and institutional Letters of Commitment from Co-Is and other key individuals need to be on institutional letterhead paper?

A60: No. Personal letters of commitment may be on email (see Section 4.5.4(iii)) or signed resumes. The format is not important. What is important is that the individual acknowledges that he/she is a willing participant in the proposal. (Unfortunately, NASA has received proposals in the past where the individuals named were not aware that the PI had named them as participants on the proposal.)

Institutional letters of commitment are required for contributions and critical participants (Section 4.5.4(i) and (ii)). The format is not important. What is important is that someone authorized to commit the institution to whatever is being proposed (either the contribution or the funded critical activity) signs the letter. This is the only way that NASA can verify - without contacting every participant individually - that the PI is proposing something that he/she can provide.

Q61: Section 4.5.4 of the AO requests only a signed or emailed commitment statement from Co-Is, unless their time is contributed. Section 7.2.3 appears to contradict the above by asking for a signature at the bottom of the resume and/or a institutional letter of commitment. Will a signed individual commitment statement or email for Co-Is (noncontributed) satisfy this requirement as stated in Section 4.5.4?

A61: Yes. NASA apologizes for the inconsistency in these instructions. The intent is not to dictate format. The intent is to verify that all participants who are committed by the proposal acknowledge that commitment. Section 7.2.3 is intended to offer additional ways of showing commitment, not to limit them. NASA will accept the required statements and letters of commitment in whatever format makes sense to the proposer.

Q62: Who are key personnel? Will we be penalized for non-compliancy if we don't name all personnel on the team in the proposal but not on the cover page even though they are instrument managers or system engineer?

A62: Key personnel are the VERY FEW individuals upon whom the success of the proposal rests. This certainly includes the PI, PM and others (see Section 4.5.2). It is recognized at a certain level of the proposed implementing team, an individual can be replaced by another qualified individual without impacting the feasibility or probability of success for the proposed mission. Only the proposing organization can determine where this line lies. As a rule of thumb, if the proposal highlights an individual's talents as contributing to the success of the proposed mission, then that person might very well be key personnel.

Q63: In AO section 4.8.2: Are student collaborations that utilize science and mission data in near-real time (i.e. in the weeks or months before data is released to the NASA data archive) considered those that "involve analysis of archival data" and therefore not allowed? i.e. can students working on investigations using our mission data in new ways be considered student collaborations?

A63: A Student Collaboration may involve analysis of mission data that has not yet been placed into a NASA data archive. In this context "archival data" refers to data that has already been placed into a NASA data archive.

Q64: I have another question regarding minimum qualifications for PM. A previous response did not answer the question. They said what the "roles and responsibilities" are, not minimum qualification requirements.

Background: SMD/SMEX FAQ Page: Will you be providing guidelines regarding what are the minimum qualifications are for the Project Manager position? If so, by when?
Answer: 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 is available on the SMEX Additional Information Page at http://explorers.larc.nasa.gov/smexacq.html .

A64: There are no minimum requirements for the project manager. It is the responsibility of the PI to determine if his/her team is qualified for the mission. The roles and responsibilities are found in section H of the AO.

Q65: Section 2.3 of the SMEX General Project Plan says that the schedule, including reviews is defined by the PI. But section 3.8 and Figure 1.4.1 state that the combined PDR/CDR will take place 16 months after selection. If I believe that the best schedule for our particular project would have the PDR/CDR six month earlier, may I define the schedule that way without penalty?

A65: Section 2.3 of the SMEX General Project Plan, informs the PI that the schedule baseline is to be defined in the proposal. It goes on to inform the PI, what is needed for the schedule baseline. Section 3.8 and Figure 1.4.1 of the same document provide a mission timeline of major reviews. There is no penalty if you design a schedule with a shorter timeline to PDR/CDR.

Q66: Are we required to schedule launch for 36 months after selection (as per Figure 1.4.1) or can we pick a slightly longer overall timeline as long as a) it matches the launch dates in the AO (for example, early 2012 being considered OK for the first launch opportunity), and b) both budget and (funded) schedule reserve requirements are met or exceeded?

A66: Yes, and a selected mission is expected to provide a schedule that will meet a proposed launch date within the mission cost specified in the SMEX AO, sections 5.4.2. and 5.4.3 The PI will be informed which mission timeframe he/she is selected. You should provide the development time and launch date for your specific mission.

Q67: In AO sections 4.4.2, 4.6.4: in 4.4.2 it is indicated that the PDR and CDR are combined. In the Foreword it is indicated that the projects "pass or fail their Confirmation Reviews to enter Phase C." In the past, Confirmation Review (CR) was roughly co-temporal with the PDR, at which point Phase C began. The CDR would occur at the end of Phase C and the project would proceed to Phase D. Throughout the AO this confusion about combination of PDR/CDR/CR vs when Phase C begins is confusing.

(a) If a Single Design Review (SDR) approach is taken, what guidelines can be provided for the expected technical maturity of the designs? What guidelines can be provided for the documentation needed for this review, and its level of maturity?

(b) If the project desires to implement a program with a traditional PDR and CDR, as one of its management tools to minimize risks, is that acceptable?

A67(a): The entrance and success criteria for each SMEX technical review is shown in the Explorers Program, SMEX Class D General Systems Review Plan. This document is Appendix C to the SMEX General Project Plan.

A67(b): A traditional PDR and CDR approach can be proposed and PI must provide a schedule that will meet all requirements and launch date.

Q68: In section 4.4.4 of the AO, it is assumed that any mission unique and special launch services would nominally be book-kept in WBS 8. Is this correct? If not, which WBS item is the correct one for tracking these costs?

A68: Yes.

Q69: The Explorer Program library has a link to GSFC-STD-1000.pdf aka the "Gold Rules." However, the linked items (on http://standards.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc-stds.html) do not allow access. How are we to obtain this and similar items?

A69: The site allows one to self register for site access.

Q70: Appendix B (pages B-4 through B-6): Please clarify the distinctions between what is expected in section D.4 (Science Data and Other Scientific Products) as opposed to that in section D.6.c (Data Analysis and Archiving) of the submitted proposal. Minor Note: In Table B6, it appears as though there is a rounding error in the calculation of the NASA cumulative inflation index for 2012. The correct number should be 1.118.

A70: Section D.4 requests a discussion of the scientific products to be used and how the products and data obtained will be used to fulfill the scientific requirements. D6.c request a discussion of THE method and format to be used in data reduction and analysis plan.

Q71: We have a 2-part follow up to Question #5 and Answer #5, currently posted on the SMEX web site under SMEX AO FAQs.

Answer #5 states "For the purpose of budget and cost reserve rules the end of Phase B is reached when the mission passes its Confirmation Review." The SMEX General Project Plan, published on October 2, states "the combined PDR/CDR will be held 16 months after mission selection". In addition it states and illustrates in Figure 1.4-1 that the Confirmation Review will be held shortly after the PDR/CDR. In conjunction with the AO requirement that "the nominal limit for any mission's spending prior to the entry into Phase C is 25% of the total PI Mission Cost commitment for Phases A/B/C/D" one would therefore conclude that the spending limit of 25% applies to the sum of Phase A and the 16 month duration from flight selection to confirmation review. The remaining 75% would be applied to the remainder of the Phase C/D schedule, which is shown as 20 months in Figure 1.4-1. Please confirm this is correct.
Answer 5 implies that the PDR/CDR will be a decision point for triggering the purchase of long lead items. This constraint seems inconsistent with the nominal schedule shown in the SMEX general project plan for items with lead times longer than 6-9 months. Will there be circumstances under which NASA will approve a long-lead request earlier than PDR/CDR, given that the 25% cost constraint for Phase B is met?

A71(a): Yes. The assumption is correct, and also note that the 25% is a guide and that reserves are calculated on cost to go.

A71(b): Yes.

Q72: Please confirm whether the following notional schedule for a first SMEX launch meets the intent of the AO, and provide corrections if this is in error. The sources for the dates and durations are the AO and the SMEX GENERAL PROJECT PLAN.

A72: This is correct, however, the $750K is intended to cover activity up to selection for flight. Technically there is no unfunded support period.

Q73: The SMEX AO (pg. 29) states that an MO " may be selected for flight without first completing a Phase A concept study.." If one requests such an option, could a selection occur as early as May 2008? If not by May 2008, how early? If an early selection occurs, realistically how soon could Phase B funding begin?

A73: It is possible for a May 2008 selection but the mission must have compelling science.

Q74: Regarding Appendix B, table B-8 and page B-13: The text states that no overheads are to be included in calculating the values.

In column 6 in Table B8, are personnel leave and/or fringe benefits considered as overheads for the purposes of this table?
In Table B8, row 1 column 5, and row 2 column 1, can you clarify the distinction between "other contractor" and "other organizations".
Does the column labeled "Other Contractor WYEs" include the PI Organization's direct labor, or is there a missing column that should be titled "PI Organization WYEs"?
For those categories of labor that are segregated by an institution into cost centers, which have their own overhead, how are these to be reported in this table?
In column 6, how do "effective direct costs" differ from "direct costs"?

A74(a): No. Fringe benefits and leave are included in direct cost. They should be included in the calculation of costs in Table B8 under the column "Effective Direct Costs".

A74(b and (c): "other contractor" are contractors at the PI organization's center or location including the PI organization WYEs (if the PI organization is not civil service or JPL). Other Contractors not at the PI center or location should have a separate line as indicated in the example by the separate line titled "other organizations".

A74(d): Report direct costs. Take out overhead.

A74(e): There is no difference.

Q75: Are the inputs to Tables B3, B4, etc to be provided as cost or NOA?

A75: The inputs to Tables B3, B4, etc will be provided as costs.

Q76: Bullet #6 on page B-8, "Attitude and Control Requirements" of the AO asks about the spacecraft requirements. In our case, the "spacecraft" would be the ISS. Do you want us to provide this information to you? Or can this be considered "not applicable" for an ISS MO?

A76: It is not applicable to ISS MO proposals.

Q77: For SMEX Missions of Opportunity on the International Space Station, should proposers develop and price of our instruments using manned or unmanned assumptions?

A77: Since the ISS is a manned spacecraft, proposers should use manned assumptions for developing and costing their instrument.

SMEX AO FAQs

Date of Last Update:02.04.2008

NOTICE: FAQs submitted to the Draft SMEX AO are relevant and are posted at the Draft SMEX AO FAQ page.

FOSO unique FAQs are posted at the FOSO FAQ page.

+ Draft SMEX AO FAQs
+ SMEX FOSO FAQs

SMEX QUESTIONS

Q&As will be posted as they are made available.

+ Submit a Question