Actually, any question asked once ends up here. ELV issue contact; GEO orbit contact; Page limits; Science section changes; Government PI; Bridge phase; Cost table; Cover page; Parts reliability criteria; Science section updates; Study report content; Uplink encryption; Software verification and validation; Foldouts; Executive summary; Draft international agreement; Updated ELV costs; Digital budget data; FOrm SF1411.

1. Q: We need to discuss the feasibility of our orbit with someone at NASA. Can you supply me with a name and phone number?
   A: The contact for ELV issues is
          Frank S. Stone
          ELV Mission Integration Manager
          Ph: 407-476-3625
          E-mail: StoneFS@kscgws00.ksc.nasa.gov
   

2. Q: How do we get a slot at GEO? What is the procedure?
   A: GEO assignments are generally based on frequency issues. The Civil Servant to contact at GSFC is
          Badri Younes
          NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
          Mailstop 450.0
          Greenbelt, MD 20771
          E-mail: byounes@class.gsfc.nasa.gov
          PH: 301-286-5089
   Badri will be on travel from March 1 - 15. His support contractor, Nicole Dretar, can help while he is away. She can be reached at 301-809-2224. Nicole works for Stanford Telecom and has a signed non-disclosure agreement.

3. Q: The science section for the Concept Study has the same page limit as for the proposal, 20 pages. Can we exceed that limit if we want to make some changes for clarification?
   A: The page limits given in the Guidelines will be enforced. Any additions added to the science section of the Concept Study Report will need to be balanced with deletions. Please indicate all changes to the science section, as we will evaluate the changes in order to decide whether a new science peer review panel needs to be convened.

4. Q: Won't the science section of the Concept Study Report require many changes to account for the Phase A study of the instruments?
   A: The Guidelines indicate that the science section should only reflect necessary changes. If changes to the instrument require modification of this section, then they should be explicitly noted. However the Phase A study of the instruments should be discussed fully in the technical approach section, where one of the areas discussed should be the science payload.

5. Q: In the MIDEX AO, Appendix B, Section J.4, a process is outlined by which non-Government participants were included in the proposal of a NASA Principal Investigator. This allows NASA to award a direct contract without competition upon selection. Can we use the same process to allow other than full and open competition if we are selected?
   A: Appendix B, Section J.4, of the MIDEX AO is a standard instruction to NASA PI's on dealing with the need for a fair and open competition. NASA can not issue policies and rules for PI's in other agencies. You will have to work with the procurement authorities in your agency to establish a procedure for implementing your mission, if it is selected. Of course, NASA requires you to describe this procedure fully in the management plan of your concept study report. It may be the case that the procedure outlined for NASA PI's will work for you. However, you will have to work within your agency's procurement regulations in whatever you do.

6. Q: The MIDEX Guidelines for Concept Study Preparation do not mention the Bridge Phase described in the AO.
   A: The Bridge Phase is an option on the Phase A contract. If your mission is selected for flight, then the Bridge Phase option will be executed to provide funding while the Phase B/C/D contract is being prepared and signed. As the Bridge Phase is not part of the Phase B/C/D contract, the Bridge Phase does not need to be discussed in the Concept Study Report.

7. Q: The cost tables require both Real Year Dollars and FY 1998 Dollars. Do we need to supply cost backup for both the Real Year and the FY 1998 costs or would it be sufficient to supply the cost backup in FY1998 dollars only for instance?
   A: I assume that by "cost backup" you mean all the detailed supporting information. Since the only difference between RY$ and FY98$ is inflation, you only need to supply the cost backup for one of those. We can do the math if we need to.

8. Q: Do you have any instructions with respect to the Concept Study Report Cover Page and the differences from the Proposal Cover Page?
   A: The requirements for the Concept Study report, including the cover, are spelled out in the Guidelines for Concept Study Report Preparation, which may be found on the MIDEX Downselect Page. In particular,
   - Since the Concept Study has been funded by NASA, the Concept Study Report can not be proprietary, and you can not place restrictions on NASA's use or disclosure. So you need to remove any statements concerning use restrictions from the cover and all pages of the Report. However, should there be proprietary information which was not generated as a result of the NASA funded activity, and should you wish to include that information in the Report, then you may mark just that part of the report (specific page or paragraph) as proprietary and restricted use.
   - The PI and institution signature blocks are required on the CSR cover page. See above referenced document and Appendix B of the MIDEX AO.
   - The pages which are called the "investigation summary" in Appendix B of the MIDEX AO are not required. These pages were generated as a result of the Web submission of proposal information; there is no Web submission of the Concept Study Report. All of the information in those pages, however, should certainly appear elsewhere within the Report.

9. Q: Please clarify the MIDEX EEE parts requirements. The "Safety, Reliability and Quality Assurance" Handout for Feb 17-18th, page 4, indicates the "EEE Parts Selection criteria per GSFC 311-INST-001 for Grade 3 quality level baseline." The latest revision of 311-INST is Rev A (dated August 96) and it has three "Levels" of programs. A "Level 3" Program is the lowest quality acceptable for a NASA program where "Mission Duration is less than 1 year, and phase C/D less than 2 years." The original version of 311-INST referred to "Grades A, B, C, and D" with Grade C equal to a Mission Duration of 1-2 years, and phase C/D of 2-3 years." What revision of 311-INST is being used for the MIDEX guidelines? Are we a "Level 3" program or a "Grade C" program?
   A: The MIDEX requirement is stated in paragraph 5.2 of GSFC-410-MIDEX-003, MIDEX Safety, Reliability & Quality Assurance Requirements. GSFC-410-MIDEX-003 is document #17 in the MIDEX Explorer Program Library. GSFC-410-MIDEX-003 requires that "parts should be selected and processed in accordance with GSFC-311-INST-00l, Instructions for EEE Parts Selection, Screening, and Qualification, for Grade 3 quality level." You should use the basic version of GSFC-311-INST-00l (no revision letter). This is the standard to which you will be held during development, if you are selected. There is no need to assign MIDEX to one of the Mission Grades (A,B,C,D) once the quality level is set at Level 3.

10. Q: In the process of our study, we have had updates to the preliminary instrument design drawings and figures that were prominant in the science section of the proposal. We would like to update the figures, and are sensitive about not triggering a re-review of the science. We propose to mark any changed figures/tables as specified, and to certify the nature of all changes that are marked in the executive summary, i.e., "The marked changes to the science section do not represent any decrease/downscoping of the science objectives proposed in the origional proposal."
    A: Your plan sounds fine. You should update the instrument design within the science section as you suggested. Since the proposed mission implementation will be evaluated to determine if it satisfies your science requirements, it is important that the science section be correct and consistent with the matured instrument and mission design. If, as you say, the updates do not change the science objectives of the mission, then it will not require a re-evaluation of the science objectives. NASA will determine whether such a re-evaluation is necessary after you submit your concept study report.

11. Q: The March, 1999 revised guidelines on page 1 (cover, 4th paragraph near the end of the first sentence), 2 (Table of Contents) refer to a section Phase B/C/D plan. But in section H there is a change which strikes the B/C/D plan and replaces it with just a "Technical Definition (Phase B) Plan". Which is correct?
    A: Both are correct. The point of Section H is to have the team give us more detail about their activities and products for Phase B, e.g what system and subsystem trades are being conducted, what plans, hardware, etc. is being produced and the schedule associated with the activities. With this data we can tell how well prepared the team will be at their confirmation review prior to going into Phase C/D. In addition remember that, for the selected teams, the downselect evaluation also serves as the confirmation review to begin Phase B.

12. Q: Is there any requirment from NASA for uplink command encryption for the MIDEX missions?
    A: Uplink command encryption is not required on MIDEX missions.

13. Q: The issue of independant software verification has come up on previous NASA programs. My understanding is that there is not a NASA requirement for independent verification and validation (IV&V) for Midex missions. Is this true?
    A: Verification and validation (V&V) of MIDEX software is required. Independent V&V is not. The requirements for software V&V are covered in the MIDEX SR&QA requirements document, GSFC-410-MIDEX-003, which is in the MIDEX Explorer Program Library. Part 1 ("MIDEX Assurance Requirements"), Section 5.4 ("Software Design Assurance") requires that "The program shall address appropriate [software] development life cycle phases such as: requirements analysis, design, code and unit test, integration and build test, performance verification, and maintenance." Part 2 ("MIDEX Assurance Guidelines"), Section 10.4 ("Software Performance Verification") recommends a number of things that the proposer should do to demonstrate satisfactory software performance. The bottom line is that you need to tell NASA how you will verify and validate the software being developed for your mission.

14. Q: We well understand and appreciate the foldouts that we are allowed that count as one page each against the page limits. The number specified in the study report guidelines will probably be sufficient. I am going to consider whether some of our material might be better presented in foldout form however, and I would interpret our guidelines as not preventing our having additional foldout pages as long as we count the additional foldouts as two pages each against our total page limit. Is this interpretation acceptable?
    A: The "Revised Guidelines for Concept Study Preparation including Program Cost Element Definitions" document, which can be found on the MIDEX Downselect Page clearly states that "The Report shall contain no more than 120 pages, including no more than seven foldout pages." Your interpretation is not correct; the guidelines do prevent you from having additional foldout pages. You will have to decide which of your material is best presented as foldouts and limit yourself to no more than seven foldout pages.

15. Q: For the MIDEX Phase A report, what is your understanding about the executive summary. Can we delete the executive summary from the original proposal and have a single summary for the report? If so, should we leave the old executive summary page intentionally blank (it was part of the science 20 pages)? Or keep the old summary in with another one in front of it?
    A: There are fairly explicit instructions concerning the executive summary in the Guidelines for the Concept Study Report (which you can find on the MIDEX Downselect Page):
    C. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INCLUDING FACT SHEET The executive summary should provide an overview of the proposed baseline investigation, including its scientific objectives; technical approach; management plan; cost estimate; and educational, technological, and public outreach plans. This should be five to seven pages in length, and should include a Fact Sheet, using the guidelines as provided in AO Appendix B.
    The executive summary is part of the 100 pages. So, yes, you can delete the old executive summary from the report. Only one executive summary is required. Or you can update the technical part of the old executive summary and keep it. Both options are allowed under the guidelines. Choose the one which works best for you in conveying the results of your study.

16. Q: What needs to be in the "Draft International Agreements" which are required to be included in the Concept Study Report?
    A: After a mission is selected, there will need to be an agreement of some kind, perhaps a Letter of Agreement or a Memorandum of Understanding, signed between the U.S. (NASA and/or the MIDEX PI institution) and the international partner (the participating institution and/or the international funding agency). Obviously, it is not possible in all cases to obtain these signed agreements prior to the NASA downselect for flight development. The Draft International Agreement should be a draft of what you intend to have signed between U.S. and international participants. It should include the commitments of both parties. There should be an indication of the status of the international partners' support for the Draft International Agreement (i.e. intend to sign as is, discussion ongoing, have not seen it yet, etc.). When international partners provide necessary and critical parts of a mission, the level of commitment by the partners is an important component of the Concept Study.

17. Q: During the MIDEX kickoff meeting at the ELV splinter session we were told explicitly that the KSC estimate would not exceed the Guide costs and that, if they did, the costs would not be counted against the mission Cap. We have been using the Cost numbers contained in the MIDEX Launch Vehicle Opportunity Guide which was issued by Ron Mueller of the ELV office at NASA HQ. Our Cost plan is complete using the original numbers contained in the NASA HQ Guide as directed by that document and the AO. We just received new cost estimates from KSC yesterday, and they exceed the NASA HQ Guide costs by $1.5M (FY98$). Another point is that, since we were told that the cost numbers from the mission would not be exceeded, we did not plan to carry any contingency against the launch vehicle, but it was suggested by KSC that we a carry an additional $2-3M which, when added to the above hit, is an additional $3.5-4.5M! Changing the rules 2 weeks prior to the Report due date is problematic, and finding an additional $4.5M would be difficult if we had a month to rework the mission costs but is impossible a week from this report going to the printer. Please provide guidance.
    A: Don't panic! Here is what we will do.
    
    • When we evaluate you against the cap, we will use the costs quoted in the MIDEX Launch Vehicle Opportunity Guide. Any increase in cost will not be assessed against your capped cost as long as you have not changed your requirements (i.e. no special services, etc.).
    • Launch vehicles are offered as GFE so we guarantee the price to you. You do not have to carry contingency for the launch vehicle cost in your proposal.
    • However, when Code S selects a mission, we will need to know the true costs and cost profiles in order to budget the selected missions. The actual costs of the ELV, and the actual cost profile, are what we will have to allocate. And NASA will have to pay for any cost increases in the ELV.
    So there are really two budgets: a fictional budget which includes the old ELV costs and which keeps you under the cap, and a real budget which reflects the true cost to NASA for your mission. I assume that the only difference between these budgets are the ELV costs. If that is true, we will
    
    • Look at the fictional budget to verify that you are under the cost cap.
    • Not evaluate the ELV costs, other than verify that you have used the numbers NASA gave you, because it is GFE.
    • Evaluate everything else as usual; but everything else is the same for both budgets so the evaluation will be the same.
    What I want you to do is
    
    • Provide the true budget in the Concept Study Report, even though it puts you over the cap.
    • Include a disclaimer in the cost section (which has no page limit) showing that you are under the cap if you use the ELV costs from the AO. You can show in some straightforward way what the differences are between the two budgets.
    Alternatively (though this is not my favorite solution) you can
    
    • Provide the fictional budget in the Concept Study Report.
    • Include an ammendment in the cost section (which still has no page limit) showing a high level version of the true budget including cost by mission phase, fiscal year, and major activity (so ELV has its own line). Include an explanation of the difference between this true budget and the fictional budget in the Concept Study Report.

18. Q: The original AO required (as stated in Appendix B, Section I) that the cost tables be submitted electronically on disk. Is this also a requirement for the Concept Study Report?
    A: There is no requirement for cost tables in the MIDEX Concept Study Report to be submitted in electronic form.

19. Q: Most of the funds for our mission will not be spent by the PI's institution, but by the project management organization. May we submit two forms SF1411, one from each institution, which together cover the entire mission?
    A: Based upon the appoach allowed by Discovery and the use of common sense, it is perfectly all right for your team to submit two forms SF1411: one from the PI's institution for the amount the PI's institution expects to receive, and one from the project management organization for the balance.

Return to the MIDEX Downselect Page

NASA Headquarters Responsible Office: Code SR
Last Updated: 11 June 1999
Author: Paul Hertz (Code SR)