MODIFICATION
A -- TEAMING OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE EARTH SYSTEMS SCIENCE PATHFINDER PROGRAM (ESSP)
- Notice Date
- 9/9/2005
- Notice Type
- Modification
- NAICS
- 541710
— Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences
- Contracting Office
- NASA/Langley Research Center, Mail Stop 144, Industry Assistance Office, Hampton, VA 23681-0001
- ZIP Code
- 23681-0001
- Solicitation Number
- SS-NNL05ESSP
- Response Due
- 9/22/2005
- Archive Date
- 9/9/2006
- Description
- This is a modification to the synopsis entitled "Teaming Opportunities for the Earth Systems Science Pathfinder Program" (ESSP)" #SS-NNL05ESSP which was posted on August 24, 2005. You are notified that the following changes are made: The page limit for responses to this partnering synopsis is revised as follows: Responses to this partnering synopsis shall be limited to 5 pages for each mission element identified as 2 through 7 (Mission Management, Spacecraft and Launch Options, Mission Operations, Payload Operations, Science data Processing, and Education and Public Outreach). Responses to this partnering synopsis shall be limited to 5 pages for each proposed instrument under the element identified as 1 (Science Instrumentation). Responses shall address each of the aforementioned evlaution criteria. Resumes of key personnel and a cover page that clearly identifies the mission element or Science Instrument addressed by the response do not count against the total allocated page count. The following questions were received and answers are provided to further clarify the synopsis as follows: Q1. The relevant experience evaluation criterion requests resumes of key personnel. Our company staff is large and we have many experienced staff members capable of leading and performing the tasks for which we have chosen to offer responses. Since the ESSP AO release date has a very large uncertainty and is well over a year away, it is impossible for us (and likely any company) to indicate in advance which personnel will be available. We assume that resumes illustrating the applicable skills of potential personnel are acceptable. A1. The preparation for an ESSP proposal begins substantially before the issuance of a solicitation. Partner selection will be made by LaRC based on the criteria stated in the synopsis which includes availability of key personnel. The synopsis describes the roles of partners selected under this Teaming Opportunity: ?selected teaming organizations will participate actively in the proposal development process?. The naming of key personnel who would be committed in the proposal development process and thereafter (if a contract is awarded for selected partner effort) is part of the evaluation criteria. Q2. The Mission Management task element implies that the personnel providing such services are located on site with the PI at LaRC. Is this the intent or can mission management support be provided off-site with regular visits to the PI, supplemented with frequent telecons, videocons, and electronic document and mail exchanges between visits? A2. The mission management function is highly integrated with the science leadership of NASA missions. Recent past performance in effectively managing (geographically) distributed teams is an indication that this task element can be performed from a location other than LaRC. Q3. Does participation in the Mission Management task element preclude participation in other task elements? For example, would the management partner be prohibited from supplying instrument support or the spacecraft bus because of conflict with performance review responsibilities under the Management element? A3. The mission management function does not preclude participation in any other of the six mission elements listed in the synopsis. Q4. The solicitation describes six instrument types, each of which could be an ESSP mission candidate. Information on the instrument packages (size, mass, power, etc.) is not provided. The Spacecraft and Launch Options element requests information on co-manifest launch options and secondary payload opportunities. The former requires data on the package parameters (if only enveloping values), while the latter is dependent on the launch date (i.e., AO release and instrument development schedule), and both depend on the launch vehicle type and primary payload orbit. Please clarify your expected response. Are independent launch scenarios (i.e., observatory on its own dedicated vehicle) not under consideration? A4. Independent launch scenarios may be an acceptable option for ESSP missions. Final requirements are yet to be finalized. The synopsis does not request a specific concept for co-manifest or secondary payload accommodation for ESSP-4. Rather, the synopsis requests recent relevant performance in identifying and/or implementing such opportunities for other missions as evidence of the capability to provide such services for ESSP-4 missions. We would expect responses to describe relevant recent technical and cost performance in terms of mission specifics: mission name; power, mass, volume, and data rate envelopes; spacecraft characteristics; launch vehicle used: special engineering, analysis, or mission design services or facilities provided: and other characteristics as appropriate to demonstrate capability to develop concepts, conduct tradeoffs, estimate time and delivery, and other functions that are the responsibility of the spacecraft and/or launch element mission partners. Q5. We expect that LaRC will receive many responses to each element. The solicitation does not describe how acceptable responses are paired with the proposed ESSP missions. For example, several contractors could provide spacecraft services. The solicitation does not provide sufficient data for conceptual spacecraft designs to be proposed at this time, so LaRC cannot evaluate how effectively the contractors would be able to accommodate the final instrument configurations. Will there be another round of responses requested from acceptable vendors to make the final team selections? Is the present solicitation just to identify a list of acceptable sources who would then be solicited to submit RFIs or proposals to the LaRC mission team(s) going forward with ESSP proposals? A5. We do not anticipate issuing another teaming opportunity synopsis to seek prospective partners. NASA LaRC is looking for the ?best? partners to team with in developing our proposal(s) and refining our requirements. If the LaRC and partner proposal(s) are selected under the Headquarters AO process, the partner would perform the proposed effort as further defined in a resultant contract. It is anticipated that the AO will be open to other Government Agencies, industry, academia and FFRDCs. You will also be free to propose directly to the AO. Q6. Do you require the 1.57um laser system to be used for spectroscopic measurement of atmospheric carbon dioxide A6.Yes. The lidar is intended to measure atmospheric CO2. The due date for responses is not extended. All other information remains unchanged.
- Web Link
-
Click here for the latest information about this notice
(http://prod.nais.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/eps/bizops.cgi?gr=D&pin=23#117326)
- Record
- SN00891889-W 20050911/050909213100 (fbodaily.com)
- Source
-
FedBizOpps.gov Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)
| FSG Index | This Issue's Index | Today's FBO Daily Index Page |