Answer: NASA requires that proposers stay within the performance parameters defined in the "ELV Launch Services Program Information Summary" document in the SMEX Library. Proposers must specify their launch service requirements as the minimum required to achieve the proposed mission. Dual compatibility is therefore achieved by defining the launch services requirements independent of a specific vehicle or provider. Proposers may reference Attachment 1 of the Information Summary for the type of requirements to include in the CSR.

Updated Answer for Clarification: The TMC's evaluation will verify the CSR requirements are consistent with launch services suitable for SMEX-class missions as described by the range of parameters in the "ELV Launch Services Program Information Summary." Therefore, the CSR should not reference a specific launch vehicle, but should specify the launch service requirements as the minimum required to achieve the proposed mission. Proposers may reference Attachment 1 of the Information Summary for the type of requirements to include in the CSR. As a part of the TMC evaluation, differences between baseline mission requirements and SMEX-class launch services capabilities across launch service providers will be noted, but not designated as a weakness.

Answer: The requests for launch services proposals anticipated for Phase B are for a competitive procurement. Therefore, the launch services requirements for all missions are defined by identifying the minimum required to achieve the proposed mission without reference to a specific launch vehicle.

Answer: Compatibility is achieved by defining the launch services requirements independent of a specific vehicle or provider, but consistent with the mission class as defined by the performance parameters in the "ELV Launch Services Program Information Summary" document in the SMEX library.

Answer: An updated ELV Launch Services Program Information Summary document will not be released. However, additional updated information on the launch services may be obtained by using the LSP performance tool (http://elvperf.ksc.nasa.gov) or contacting the LSP representative identified at the SMEX Phase A Kick-off meeting, Wanda Harding at wanda.j.harding@nasa.gov or at (321) 867-4968.

Answer: The CSR costs should remain consistent with the currently published guidelines. Proposers will not be responsible for incorporating unpublished numbers, nor should savings be assumed based on anticipated differences across potential providers.

Answer: Provide only one mass margin for your proposal. You should use the terminology and definitions for Contingency (or reserve) and Margin as defined in appendix B of the AO. The evaluation will be based on the Guidelines and Criteria for the Phase A Concept Study and the AO requirements and constraints which do not state specific Technical Resource Margin requirements. The evaluation team will review your specific mission proposal and the proposed margins and determine whether the proposed reserves are sufficient and appropriate for your specific mission proposal. The GSFC Golden Rules document, GSFC-STD-10000 is listed in the SMEX library as a reference document and proposers should be aware of these GSFC "rules" in anticipation of being selected. Note that in the introduction to this document it says, "GSFC Rules are not intended to serve as a "cookbook" or "how-to" guide, but rather as another tool for assessing overall project risk and assuring mission success."

Updated Answer for Clarification: Section J Cost Proposal of the Guidelines and Criteria for the Phase A Concept Study, says that ³The contractor will be requested to submit a formal cost proposal based upon the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15. The instruction and format for submission of this proposal are found in FAR Part 1 .403-5 and Table 15.2. It is essential that the cost elements proposed in the formal contract proposed to contract award be traceable to the cost proposal provided in the CSR. Any changes in cost from the Concept Study Report should be described in detail." This is not referring a change from the step one proposal.
 
However, in Technical Approach section 4 it says "Highlight any changes to the payload or individual instruments or their performance since submission of the proposal". Any thing that can affect the science that was proposed in the original proposal should be highlighted. If there are items that you are changing that can affect the science return of the mission that are described outside the science implementation section, we want you to "highlight" this in some way so we do not miss it. The level of detail is to describe what science would change and why you are making that change.

Answer: Yes, that is the intent. It is currently expected that this will be part of the selection decision and proposers will be notified whether they are the first or second launch when they are notified that they are selected.

Answer: Since we do not know what you are proposing until we receive your proposal, we cannot say in advance that there will be no effect.

Answer: Other software programs can be used for developing a schedule for your proposal. However, If you are using another software program for your schedule development, you should export your schedule in a format that is compatible with and can be read by Microsoft Project.

Answer: The ground rules are described in section K of the Guidelines and Criteria for the Phase A Concept Study document. No further guidelines are known at this time. If you are selected for the second launch you may be asked to submit a revised funding profile based on information that is available at the time of selection.

Answer: You should propose what you think is sufficient funding to start Phase C/D for the second launch date. If different information is available at the time of selection you may be asked to resubmit a funding profile after selection.

Answer: All known funding constraints will be stated in Section K.

Answer: Yes.

Answer: A project schedule page (a foldout is often used to allow details to be readable, but use of a foldout for this is up to the proposer and will count against the total limit for foldout pages) covering all phases of the investigation shall be provided. The schedule format shall have a timeline granularity of months or finer, have a corresponding table of dates, and follow standard NASA WBS elements for task descriptions as prescribed in NPR 7120.5D. The schedule page and accompanying narrative shall address proposed major milestones including, at a minimum, the following items:
- Instrument development and major review dates;
- Spacecraft development and major review dates;
- Instrument-to-spacecraft/host integration and test;
- Ground systems development and major review dates (e.g mission operations and data analysis development schedule);
- Major deliverables (e.g. ICDs, simulators, engineering modules, flight modules, etc.); and
- Launch vehicle integration and launch readiness;
- Long-lead item specifications, development paths, and their impacts to schedule;
- Development schedule for SEOs, if any;
- Schedule critical path identification; and
- Funded schedule reserve, with indications of appropriate reserves associated with major milestones and deliverables."
 
A electronic version of the schedule in a format readable by Microsoft project is required. As a guideline for this electronic schedule file, it is recommended that the schedule not exceed 2,000 lines with schedule detail down to component level. Components which have no development requirements (e.g. reaction wheels, power supplies) should be limited to a single line while components requiring development should have additional/appropriate detail which reflects the level of development.

Answer: Section F.7 of the Guidelines and Criteria for the Phase A Concept Study says, "Contact with NASA-provided operations and communications services during the Concept Study is encouraged to better understand the options and associated costs.... Projects must conduct trade studies on the use of NASA-provided services versus any proposed alternatives."

Answer: There is no "criteria" for deciding when to conduct the trade study. NASA encourages proposers to do this in Phase A if they are proposing using non-NASA services in order to identify the true costs of these services prior to selection. Section F.7 of the Guidelines and Criteria for the Phase A Concept Study says, "Contact with NASA-provided operations and communications services during the Concept Study is encouraged to better understand the options and associated costs."

Answer: Yes. This is specifically addressed in section F.4 "Highlight any changes to the payload or individual instruments or their performance since submission of the proposal.

Answer: Yes. The updated Guidelines and Criteria for the Phase A study will be updated to add "or color" to this requirement.

Answer: The second launch should be no earlier than April 2014 and no later than September 30, 2015.

Answer: In order to put contracts in place, NASA requires the level of information described in the Guidelines and Criteria for the Phase A Concept Study, Section J, Cost Proposal.

Answer: It is the proposal team responsibility to conduct trade studies with NASA support. The NASA personnel that can assist in the trade studies are listed as points of contact the Mission Operations and Communications Services document.

Answer: Yes, you are correct that most of Section F is new and so Highlighting changes in the same way as required for the Section E may not feasible. You may choose how you would like to "highlight" these significant changes in section F "to the payload or individual instruments or their performance since submission of the proposal". Changes affecting science, should also be included in the science change matrix.

Answer: As described in the Cost Plan section, detailed cost data is required for Phase B as part of the Concept Study Report. Immediately after downselection, the formal cost and pricing data will be requested for all mission phases.

Answer: A letter of commitment is required for all Co-Is as stated in AO section 4.5.4. This will be clarified in the Guidelines and Criteria for the Phase A study by updating section M.1.

Answer: It depends on how proposers implement SC and SEO. If the proposer uses subcontracting as described under AO section 4.9 and AO Appendix A Section XIII to accomplish the SEO and or SC then they should include the funding amounts in the Subcontracting plan.

Answer: Yes. You may keep the original SC if so desired.

Answer: SEOs and SCs can be addressed in appendix M.4 but must be addressed separately from the baseline mission since they may not be selected. Note that SCs are within the PI Mission cost cap but SEOs are not.

Answer: The subcontracting plan should address all phases of the investigation and the total PI mission cost.

Answer: The SC cost should be included in upper half of the chart that includes all PI Mission Costs.

Answer: SEOs should also be listed at the bottom of Table 3.

Answer: You may add or change Co-Is during the Phase A study. Letters of Commitment are required for new Co-Is but this is no different than the other Co-Is.

Answer: All participants means all known participants at this time. This means the PI, PM, all Key personnel, all Co-Is and all participating organizations or institutions.

Answer: The POC should be a person to verify past role and performance.

Answer: An example is provided in the SMEX Library. See the document titled "Example: Project Level Requirements" in section 6 of the library.

Answer: See Section J titled Cost Proposal for guidance.

Answer: No.

Answer: Mac makes computers with the Intel chip which allows us to run the Windows operating system with software called Parallels. This allows us to run Microsoft Project on a Mac.

Answer: NASA encourages you to provide the letters of commitment from international partners when you submit your CSR. If this is not possible then it may be as late as the site visit.

Answer: No, it does not need to be a separate file.

Answer: Per the AO and updated Guideline document, "Resumes or curriculum vitae should be no longer than three pages for the PI and one page for each additional participant."

Answer: The information captured in section 5.4.1 of the Pegasus User¹s Guide (PUG) Release 6.0 and section 3.1 of the Falcon User¹s Guide (FUG) Revision 7 may be used as references for the center of mass constraints and accuracy requirements.

Answer: Stiffness is more of a guideline than a requirement. The flight system's fundamental lateral frequency should be greater than 20 Hz to avoid dynamic coupling. A more conservative approach is the recommendation that both the fundamental axial and lateral be greater than 25 Hz. Additional guidelines will be provided upon launch vehicle selection in Phase B.

Answer: SpaceX recommends deriving a payload-peculiar sine vibe environment curve based upon a coupled loads analysis, updated with appropriate flight history.

Answer: The item "Proposed LV Configuration" pre-dates the expanded availability of launch services for SMEX-class missions. Therefore, the proposer may leave this item blank.

Answer: NASA will not categorize the CSR ­ that process was only for the Step 1 selection.  The science section will only be re-evaluated if there is a SIGNIFICANT change in the science.  The added implication of that is that the science implementation and TMC reviews will be for this new science you propose.

Answer: Yes. The proposer may reorganize and update the information from the original proposals as they wish but they must stay within the page limits and content descriptions of sections as defined in the Guidelines and Criteria for the Phase A study or the Science Investigation, Section E and Technical Approach, Section F.

Answer: As described in the Guidelines document in section F.4 "The draft Level 1 science requirements of the investigation, as agreed to by the PI, PM and other key personnel, must be clearly identified in this section." Also, the appendix M.5 titled "Mission Definition and Requirements Agreement" is required and does include the Science Requirements.  An example of this document is in the SMEX library in section  6.  In regard to the PAIP, this document is not required as part of the CSR.  This document must be provided immediately after selection is announced which is currently in the Spring of 2009.

Answer: Yes. The cost cap for SMEX full mission investigations is $105 Million in Fiscal Year 2008 dollars. Follow the instructions in each cost table to show totals in Real Year and FY08 dollars.

Answer: Table 2 is intended to cover Phase B only. The WBS should be consistent with 7120.5D and go to level 2 for all elements and level 3 for the spacecraft & payload. Note that in the first paragraph of Part II ­ Required Quantities, Media, Format, and Content, cost tables are required to be submitted on the CD as separate excel files. "Proposers must also submit the data in cost tables as separate Microsoft Excel files." Also note that that as stated in the fourth paragraph, "Additional foldout pages may be used for the cost tables required in Sections J through L." Also note that there is no page limit on the cost section. If your table 2 does not fit on one page while meeting our font limits, consider using a foldout.

Answer: If the change is desired at the end of Phase A, just put it in the CSR. Approval of the CSR is approval for the change.
 
If the proposers wants to make a change to key personnel now, then they need to send a request to NASA now. It should be a letter through proper channels at the requesting organization, addressed to Dr. Hashima Hasan as Program Scientist. Tell us what you are doing, why, and include a 1 page CV for the new personnel.
 
The Evaluation Panel will review all key personnel as part of the evaluation process.
 
A definition of key personnel is in section 4.5.2 of the AO.
 
"In section 4.5.2 of the AO it is stated that "Any replacement of key personnel (including but not limited to the PI, PM, deputy PI, deputy PM, industry lead, and instrument leads) requires concurrence by NASA. Furthermore, the PM must be approved at each transition to the next phase..."
 
Note that Co-Is are not usually key (management) personnel. Changing Co-Is is proposed in the CSR and is approved at downselect. The proposer must explain what changes were made and why, since the Co-I list was part of the science evaluation. NASA will look at the new CO-I list and determine whether this warrants a new science peer review.

Answer: Yes.

Answer: The requirement for Cost or Pricing data for the Bridge Phase and Phase B is stated in Section J.1. The last sentence of J.1.a specifically says that the data may be provided as Appendix M.19. Please carefully review section J.1 titled Cost Proposal for Bridge Phase and Phase B.
 
Also, note that the bridge phase is defined in the second sentence of Section J. " The bridge phase is intended to cover a four month period of Phase B effort to provide program continuity while the Phase B/C/D/E/F negotiations are completed."

Answer: as described in section J.1.f.iii, all subcontractor costs need to be addressed.

Answer: Appendix M.15 in the Concept Study Report is titled "Subcontracting Plan". This appendix needs to address all the subcontracting for the entire value of the investigation.

Answer: No, that is not the correct interpretation. "If there are no changes" (to your original science investigation in the proposal to the AO), "this section" (your original science investigation in the proposal to the AO) must be repeated identically from the proposal" (and put in section E of the Concept Study Report ­ not appendix M.17)" with a statement that there are no changes."
 
You only need to provide a science change matrix in Appendix M.17 if you have made changes.
 
"In addition, a change matrix giving the original (proposed) requirement, the new requirement, rationale for the change, and its location within the CSR is required as an appendix (see Section M.17)."

Answer: Yes it is acceptable to have a custom page inserted behind the color cover page with the signatures and other detailed information.

Answer: Yes. Proposers may contact the GSFC RSDO. Using RSDO is mentioned as a possibility in the AO in Appendix B.
 
"If the proposed spacecraft bus is in the Rapid Spacecraft Development Office catalog, explain how any changes to the technical specifications given in the catalog are going to be achieved and how those changes affect other subsystems."
 
The RSDO point-of-contact at GSFC is Gregory Smith (gregory.f.smith@nasa.gov)

Answer: The first sentence of Appendix 4 says "Provide draft Statement(s) of Work for all potential contracts with NASA". So, no this does not apply to NASA centers since NASA does not put contracts in place with NASA centers.

Answer: Yes: "that the Proposers Mission Project is responsible for the deliverables that are stated in the MAR as well as other Project level roles"... and that ... "they will provide updates to the GSFC Program Office, request expertise help as needed and invite GSFC to all significant reviews".

Answer: Only a draft in requested. Provide details that reflected your Phase A Concept Study Report.

Answer: An E/PO plan is a required element at CDR. NASA would like to see a good draft by PDR and will convene a small review team to provide comments on it. The E/PO plan is concurred on at HQ by the SMD E/PO Lead.

Answer: The IBR review is related to the EVM process for which we have submitted a waiver to 7120.5D exempting Universities and Class D missions from the EVM requirement. Unfortunately, the waiver has not, at this time, been approved. That said, however, the IBR should be regarded as a detailed schedule review that should take place as part of the PDR and confirmation assessment review process or right after confirmation. Since the waiver has not yet been granted, the missions should plan to conduct this review.