Q6: (December 15, 2003) In the SMEX document "Guidelines and Criteria for the Phase A Concept Study," the first launch of the current downselected payloads is slated to occur "by November 2007". In your plenary session presentation and in the debriefing, you mentioned that this was not a hard date, and that a launch in early 2008 would still constitute the first of the two launches.
Please confirm that a proposed launch in early 2008 would indeed be treated as satisfactory in meeting the requireemnts on the first launch.
A6: Although NASA has set the schedule for the downselect activity to allow a first launch by November 2007, the launch date requirement is given in the Phase A Guidelines: "The proposer must specify the launch date in the proposal; the launch date must be no later than November 2008."
You are free to propose any launch date up through the last day of November 2008. In particular, a proposed launch in early 2008 meets the launch date requirement. Whether this would be the first launch or not is a decision that NASA will make when it selects missions to proceed into Phase B following the downselect decision.
Q8: (February 14, 2004) In the February 4 and February 13 communications, the Mission of Opportunity ANITA in is not explicitly mentioned. Does this mean that the ANOTA team should continue its concept study with no change in dates? The first balloon launch date is highly constrained to December 2006; slips for come in 1 year increments and do have a serious impact on planning and science. Does the silence so far mean that a Mission of Opportunity is still allowed in all of the options, assuming of course that the evaluation of the Concept Study Report is favorable? Should a launch date slip be considered as part of the planning for ANITA?
A8: The "there is no change in launch date guidelines" guidance also applies to ANITA. However there is no guarantee at this time that we can support the preferred launch date for any downselected project, including ANITA. So the ANITA team should:
ANITA's proposed cost is a large fraction of the cost of a SMEX. It should come as no surprise that downselecting ANITA will have an impact on NASA's ability to support all of the downselected missions's on the requested timescale. This is consistent with the AO, which states, "if a Mission of Opportunity is selected, a reduced flight rate of future Explorers will result."
- Propose its preferred launch data as the baseline, and
- Use Section K of its Concept Study Report to describe the impacts and changes caused by NASA requiring them to launch a year later (e.g. because of budgetary constraints).
Q9: (March 5, 2004) Do we respond to the SMEX SR&QA (safety, reliability, and quality assurance) document (also referred to as MAR, mission assurance requirements) that is on the Explorer Website, which is pointed to by the AO, or do we respond to the new MAR that is being used for THEMIS and AIM?
A9: This was covered in the Q&A of the downselect kickoff meeting. Use the SMEX SR&QA Requirements document that was part of the SMEX AO, and is in the SMEX library, for your Phase A study. Any changes in SMEX requirements will be incorporated during Phase B.
Q10: (March 5, 2004) I assume each mission pays for the IIRT review folks to review our project, i.e. Explorers Program Office does not pay for their time.
A10: That is correct. These costs are built into the substantial increase in the cost cap over previous SMEX missions. (It is the case that IIRT costs for previously selected missions, such as Swift, THEMIS and AIM, are being paid by the Explorers Program office since this activity was never baselined in the original AO's, nor was part of the cost cap baseline. Future missions are planned to have IIRT reviews baselined at the Project level with required funding included in the cost cap.)
Q11: (March 5, 2004) Table 4 of the CSR guidelines asks for Development costs for Phase C and D in Real Year dollars. The columns on that table then ask for recurring and non recurring. We have to break down our costs into recurring and non recurring. For a one time build, this request is a bit confusing. The definition that we are guessing at is as follows:
Non recurring: If we had to build a second spacecraft/instrument, these are costs that we don't need the second time around because, i.e. we already have performed the engineering that went into designing things, and thus have drawings, etc.
Recurring: These are costs that we'd have to spend again if we were to build a second spacecraft/instrument.
Are we on the right track with these definition?
A11: Exactly correct.
Q12a: (March 19, 2004) Are changes in science implementation (which are formally included within the Science Investigation section) considered changes to the investigation requiring specific identification? For example, a reconfiguration of the payload to better accommodate the instruments can lead to a significant change in the overall structure of the system, while still addressing the same science. We would assume that these would be described in the additional page allottment, but would not directly impact the science goals per se, and would thus not require specific identification. What about the case of an implementation change that adds or modifies some instrument capability which was called out as a "minor weakness" during the debrief? If such changes included in the implementation do then achieve the same science goals in a more robust way, is this considered a change that "must be identified" in the manner noted above?
A12a: Yes these are changes and they should be identified. If you rewrite an entire paragraph or section to describe these changes, then you should mark the entire paragraph or section as changed. The intent is to call out the changed areas so NASA can make a determination as to whether the changes require a re-evaluation of the scientific merit. If NASA concurs that the changes "achieve the same science goals in a more robust way," then this would not be justification for a re-evaluation. Nevertheless the changes must be identified in some manner.
Q12b: (March 19, 2004) Does the statement in section II E that "If there are no changes, this section must be repeated identically from the proposal with a statement that there are no changes" apply to both the "Scientific Goals and Objectives" subsection and the "Science Implementation" subsection, so that any additional description or refinement of the science implementation section (as you expected above) precludes the exercising of this option?
A12b: Yes.
Q13: (March 20, 2004) In response to the peer review evaluation of my proposal, I am considering changing the number of co-investigators on my project when I submit my Concept Study Report. Is this (a) not allowed, (b) very unwise, (c) okay as long as the total does not increase, or (d) other?
A13: I will not comment on the wisdom or non-wisdom of such a change. If your mission was downselected and if NASA approved the change in the co-I list (additions and/or subtractions), then NASA would process paperwork to change the co-I list that was approved when your mission was selected to enter Phase A. Changing the co-I list requires the approval of the selecting official, Ed Weiler.
Q14: (March 30, 2004) Please confirm the page limit (if any) for the E/PO, New Technology, and SDB section. The table on pg. 8 of the SMEX CSR G/L has no limit (other than 98!) whereas Appendix A of the CSR G/L has a limit of 4 pages. Which is correct?
A14: Regarding page limits, both are correct. The limit for "everything" is 98 pages, and included within that is a maximum of 4 pages for E/PO.
Q15: (March 31, 2004) When I read Amendment 1, my interpretation was that we still had to describe New Technology and SDB, but that it would not be evaluated separately. In other words, the last two sections of the evaluation criteria on pg 6 of the CSR G/L had effectively been merged into the other evaluation criteria. Upon re-reading Amendment 1, I now interpret the above text as being deleted and the requirements for describing New Technology and SDB have also been deleted. In other words, Secs. H.2 and H.3 on pg 19 of the CSR G/L are also deleted. Have I interpreted Amendment 1 correctly?
A15: As explained in Amendment 1, some of the information in section H2 and H3 is still required even though "Quality of Plans for Advanced Technology Infusion and Transfer" and "Quality of Subcontracting Plans for Small Disadvantaged Business Activities and Minority Institutions" are no longer evaluation criteria.
Paragraph 2 of Amendment 1 explains how the use of new technology will be factored into the overall evaluation of science implementation merit and mission feasibility. So the specific requirements of Section H3 are no longer required. What is required is a discussion of (quoting Amendment 1) "The advantages and disadvantages of any proposed new technology." You can include that discussion where it most makes sense.
Paragraph 3 of Amendment 1 explicitly states, "A subcontracting plan still needs to be submitted in conjunction with the Phase A CSR." The instructions in Section H2 are consistent with the instructions in Amendment 1, so the requirements are unchanged. However, the subcontracting plan is now not evaluated separately, but is evaluated in the context of the overall technical, management, and cost plan. The subcontracting plan can be considered a part of the cost plan and included in the cost proposal (Section J) rather than in Section H. The consequence of this clarification is that the subcontracting plan does not have to be included in the 98 page limit for Sections F through I.
Q16: (April 2, 2004) If I add Phase F activities (science enhancements) during the prime mission, will that trigger a science review?
A16: As long as you do not impact your ability to meet the science objectives that you proposed in the manner that you proposed, this would not necessarily trigger a scince review. If you sacrifice resources for the Phase F activities that had been originally intended to meet the proposed science objectives, then a science review might be justified.
Q17: (April 15, 2004) We are concerned about ambiguities in the area of data downlink. We have heard of potentially restrictive policies concerning S-band licensing. Apparently one mission misunderstood the bandwidth restrictions and could not receive the allocation that they assumed they could. Should we propose to "what should be available", or "what is available"?
A17: All concept study reports will be reviewed against the appropriate requirements and best practices. The evaluation team will include expert reviewers in the field of space telecommunications. The SMEX library (document 29) contains references to relevant documentation as well as expert POCs who can provide you with guidance should it be required. You may contact the GSFC spectrum manager to obtain the most up to date information on bandwidth limitations.
Roger D. Porter, NASA Goddard Spectrum Manager
Tel. 301-286-5089; E-mail: Roger.D.Porter@nasa.gov
Q18: (April 15, 2004) As I read the AO and the CSR, I do not see a specific goal, i.e. 8% (as in previous SMEX AO's) for costs to be applied to SDB contacts. Am I reading this right? It is my understanding that SDB is now not a criteria for evaluation, but we need to include our SDB plans in the proposal. I just want to be clear on the targets, if any.
A18: The 2003 SMEX AO (Appendix A, Section XIII) does not contain specific goals for small and small disadvantaged business subcontracting. As stated in Amendment 1, although there is no longer a separate criterion for the subcontracting plan, the subcontracting plan will be evaluated.
Q19: (April 15, 2004) We have a rather complex question relating to the costing of the IIRT reviews for SMEX's 10/11. In Section 3.0 of the SMEX Safety, Reliability, and Quality Assurance Requirements document, eight reviews are identified as being attended and conducted by the IIRT. In addition, two management reviews are mentioned (Confirmation Review and Mission Readiness Review), where the IIRT presumably reports its findings. Are these the only reviews for which IIRT costs should be estimated and included in the mission cost? What basis of estimate should be used to estimate IIRT costs? For example, in addition to travel costs, do we account for the labor costs associated with IIRT members attending the project reviews and working outside of the reviews on action items associated with our project? If so, how? We have had recent discussions with the GSFC office that manages the IIRTs, and they indicate a significantly more intrusive level of IIRT involvement in projects than simply attending the reviews listed in the SMEX documentation. In addition, this office indicates that no IIRT agreement has been established between them and the Explorers Office for this SMEX competition to ensure a level playing field for the competing missions. Is each of the five competing SMEX missions supposed to negotiate its own unique deal with the GSFC IIRT management? If so, should that deal be based on today's evolved IIRT practice or just attending the reviews listed in the SMEX documentation?
A19:
The short answer is that the Proposer should cost this IIRT activity in accordance with the SR&QA requirements for reviews identified in the AO. This is the only way to keep it fair to all AO responders.
It is true that there is no "MOU" with the Reviews Office at GSFC for conducting IIRT reviews for this SMEX AO. That agreement will have to be worked with the winning proposers to this AO after downselection. It is fair to expect that based on the current level of IIRT involvement in the present Explorers missions that any agreement reached post-selection will include more IIRT reviews than listed in the AO, including participation in the peer review process. However that should not be included in the proposal response, since this likely additional effort was not in the AO.
IIRT formal reviews conducted so far are similar in scope for preparing and presenting material that has been previously done for GSFC Code 301 formal reviews (PDR, CDR, etc), with the caveat that the number of people on the panel is larger (i.e. 10-12 now).
There are 2 cost areas associated with IIRT reviews:
First is the time, travel and materials required within the Mission being reviewed to prepare and present the material, and for any follow-up associated with RFA responses and closure. This is expected to be costed by the proposers for the IIRT reviews identified in the AO.
Second is the IIRT members cost associated with attending the review and any follow-up. These costs include as a minimum, review preparation time, travel, labor for the time at the review, and any post-review labor costs associated with RFA's follow-up and closure by the IIRT members. Given the significant cost per IIRT review, the lack of specific requirements in the AO, and the lack of agreement with the GSFC reviews office on scope and content of SMEX class IIRT reviews, the Explorers Program Office will cover the second item for the actual travel and labor costs for the IIRT member to prepare for, attend, and follow-up RFAs to closure from IIRT reviews.
Q20: (April 21, 2004) Our Step 1 proposal contained a 1-page Executive Summary within the Science Investigation Section, which we are to reproduce in the CSR Section E. Our previous Executive Summary will now be redundant with the new Section D. May we cut that page of text from the CSR Section E, and list it as a change in our change matrix? If so, how should we treat the page limit?
A20: It is not necessary to duplicate the executive summary from your original proposal within Section E of your Concept Study Report (CSR). For the purposes of accounting for changes in the science investigation section from the proposal to the CSR, you may exclude the original executive summary from the original science investigation summary (i.e. not repeating the proposal's executive summary in Section E of the CSR is not considered a "change".)
The page limits in the CSR Guidelines should be treated literally: 5 pages for the executive summary (Section D) and 25 pages for the science investigation excluding an executive summary (Section E).
Q21: (April 21, 2004) A question has come up regarding Principal and co-Investigator contributions of their research time, beyond that time which is funded by the project as summer salary.
For university teaching faculty, our contracts typically pay a 9 month salary with specific teaching duties required to fulfill it. Although the university recognizes that a faculty member spends a portion of their 9-month time doing research and public service, and encourages this, there is no requirement that such times be directly accounted for as a contribution to any given project.
There are of course other types of research faculty, for example university-funded research specialists or research professors, who can be tasked to support a given project and whose efforts would clearly be contributions which would be costed as a fraction of their time. But 9-month tenure-track or tenured faculty do not fall under this category and are not normally required to account for research or other service time.
If there is therefore no university requirement for cost accounting of 9-month tenure-track or tenured faculty research project contributions, is it necessary to try to capture a dollar value of such contributions in Table 5? ( I understand that a time commitment must still be made and defined, and we expect to provide letters of endorsement from our departments indicating their support of our commitment.)
A21:
NASA's requirement to account in the original proposal and in the Phase A concept study report (CSR) for the contributed time of co-investigators does not flow from any university's requirements for cost accounting of faculty members. The requirement in Section 3.5.2 of the SMEX AO still applies under the circumstances that you described in your question: "If contributed, the costs [of a co-investigator] must be accounted for in the Total Cost and an endorsement letter from the proposed Co-Investigator's institution must be provided with the proposal." Note that the letter of endorsement must meet the requirements of Section 3.5.3 of the SMEX AO and Sections G.9.a and M.1 of the SMEX Phase A Guidelines.
NASA requires a letter of commitment for the contributed time, regardless of whether it is covered by a co-investigator's 9-month salary or not, because the Principal Investigator has identified the co-investigators contributions to the mission as critical. As this is a critical contribution, it is necessary that the contributor (the co-investigator's employer) document this contribution. Assigning a dollar value to this contribution allows NASA to quantify the risk that the project is assuming in relying on a contribution, as well as to verify that the total contributions do not exceed 33% of the NASA cost for the project. In assigning a dollar value to this time, you should use any straightforward method that is acceptable to both you and the co-investigator's employer.
Q22: (April 27, 2004) I have several questions regarding how we should report NSBF cost. We were treating NSBF costs as Launch Services and were only going to report costs in Tables 1, 2, and 3. Is this the correct philosophy and adequate cost reporting? If not, are we required to provide cost details as described in Section J.1.e, J.2.e, Table 4, and Table 6?
A22: You are correct in treating NSBF costs as equivalent, in your case, to Launch Services costs. As with Launch Services, the information in Tables 1, 2, and 3 needs to be supplemented with a description of the NSBF Services costed in the tables. This description should include launch site, number of flights, and the nominal services being used as well as unique or optional services. The purpose of such a description is to enable the reviewers to validate that the costs have been calculated correctly.
Q23: (May 3, 2004) The SMEX ELV Launch Services Information Summary document states that proposers should contact KSC for guidance on launch vehicle prices for launch dates different than Feb 2007 and Feb 2008. Unfortunately, due solely to fact that the SMEX 10/11 selection process is running three months later than stated in the AO, our planned launch date has now been forced from FY07 into FY08. Thus, according to the guidance provided by KSC, we must now absorb a more expensive price for our launch vehicle than was originally proposed. Since this three month delay was solely due to Explorer Program selection process delays, may we use the FY07 launch vehicle price if our launch occurs prior to December 31, 2007?
A23: (a) It is correct that ELV costs are fixed for the fiscal year of the launch and are independent of month. I refer you to "clarification Q&A LV-1 from the SMEX AO: "The cost charts in the ELV Launch Services Information Summary document depend only on the fiscal year of the launch. A launch in FY07, including August 2007, should use the chart labeled February 2007. A launch in FY08, including August 2008, should use the chart labeled February 2008. More accurate launch cost profiles will be tailored to a specific launch date during the Phase A concept study. (b) When you deinflate the costs to FY03 dollars, the difference between the two fiscal years is small. (c) However, as directed at the kickoff meeting, you should be using the Phase A LV cost charts that take into account the 3 month slip in launch date due to the slowdown in evaluation. They are posted in the kickoff presentations (the one on ELV by Tom DeLaet) on the SMEX downselect site. These give launch costs labeled "Nov 07" and "Nov 08" but they are good for FY08 and FY09 launches.
Q24: (May 8, 2004) Regarding Answer 23: The increase in Taurus launch costs given at the Phase A Kickoff compared with costs quoted in the AO are significant, and we therefore have to question the appropriateness of raising the prices later than the AO while keeping the cost cap constant.
A24: Since LV costs are not within the control of the PI, any increases in LV cost do not come out of the cost cap. Although there is no difference between the two sets of LV costs for a Pegasus LV, there is a difference of $0.9M (FY03$) for a Taurus. This increase does not count against the $120M (FY03$) cost cap. Should you propose a Taurus LV, please clearly account for this difference. There are two obvious ways to do so, but you may use any method that is clear and transparent to the reviewers of your Concept Study Review. The two obvious ways are (i) use the new costs from the kickoff, but assume a $0.9M increase in your cost cap, or (ii) use the old costs from the AO but show the difference (between the two sets of costs) outside of the cost capped budget.
Q25: (May 8, 2004) Are the "costs associated with each Co-I" simply the co-I salary costs associated with the percent commitment just above, or do they include ALL costs such as postdocs, travel, etc.?
A25: The "costs associated with each Co-I" include all costs associated with completing the project. I assume that means fully loaded. It would be your burden to explain how a Co-I could carry out his/her commitments without incurring the additional costs.
Q26: (May 15, 2004) May we move a foldout from Science Investigation (from the Step 1 Proposal) to the Executive Summary section D of the CSR? It will be unchanged from the Step 1 proposal, and we will count it as one page in the Executive Summary.
A26: This is an allowable change to the Science Investigation section, as long as you identify it as a change.
Q27: (June 4, 2004) For Appendix M4 (Statement of Work), the SMEX CSR guidelines say: "Provide draft SOWs for all potential contracts with NASA. These SOWs must (as a minimum) be for each contract option (i.e., Phases B through D, and Phase E) and clearly define all proposed deliverables (including science data) for each option, potential requirements for Government facilities and/or Government services, and a proposed schedule for the entire mission." (a) Since we do not have options for Phases B through D and E, and only one contract, what is the intent of specifying the options? (b) Is it correct to write one SOW for the entire project, covering all phases, or does this require deliverables described by phase with separate SOWs to support the respective phase(s)?
A27: There is a draft model contract in the SMEX Library (document 35). (a) The downselected mission(s) will be given a contract for Phase B with options for Phases C/D and E. The Phase C/D option will be executed upon successful completion of Confirmation, and the Phase E option will be executed upon the successful execution of launch and in orbit checkout. (b) You must describe a SOW for each phase. You should have done this in your Stage 1 proposal. You need to flush it out with what you learned during Phase A, specify sample deliverables, etc. The final contract will be negotiated following downselection.
Q28: (June 8, 2004) For letters of endorsement, the CSR guidelines ask for letters "signed by both the lead representative from each organization represented on the team, and by institutional and Government officials authorized to commit their organizations to participation in the proposed investigation." Please clarify the nature of the "lead representative" as we are having trouble identifying who these are for the various institutions supplying letters of endorsement.
A28: The lead representative is the individual who represents the organization to project management.
Q29: (June 11, 2004) The guidelines say that the adobe pdf-format file included on the CD, and the printed copy must be "identical." Do you wish the pdf version of the foldouts to appear embedded at the full 11x17 format within the pdf, or do we satisfy the "identical" requirement if the pages are identical in content but appear as letter sized in the pdf and foldout-sized in the printed version?
A29: The intent of the "identical" requirement is that they be identical in content. Letter-sized in the PDF and foldout-sized in the printed document is acceptable. (FYI, the intent is to have a computer searchable file that has identical content to the printed document.)
Q30: (June 11, 2004) Do you wish the "tab-delimited text file" versions of the required cost tables to have a single tab separating each contiguous item, including text headings, or do you wish the columnar costs to line up vertically, regardless of whether extra tabs are required in some lines compared to others?
A30: The first is intended as this can be reimported into a spreadsheet program. (FYI, the intent is to enable reviewers to electronically import your data regardless of what spreadsheet program they use.)
NASA Headquarters Responsible Office: Code SZ
Last Updated: 11 June 2004
Author: Paul Hertz (Code SZ)