EOS SOLSTICE Project Page

RFP Fequently Asked Questions and Clarifications

  1. Page Count Limit Clarification:

    Section 1 - Technical Proposal Section 4 - Relevant Experience and Past Performance

    Are the only sections included in the page count.

    In section 4 we are really looking at past technical performance and your organizations ability to accurately predict and budget sub-contracts and components manufactured outside of your organization.

    Resumes are not included in the page count.

  2. Star and Sun Trackers:

    The units are the responsibility of the contractor - the reference to these units in the RFP was an error. LASP has no recommendation for these sensors.

  3. Alignments in the Performance Specification, Paragraph 4.2.4.:

    LASP will perform these alignments. The only equipment or materials required from the contract would be the flight mounting plate.

  4. Calibration in the Performance Specification Paragraph 4.4.3

    The calibration listed in the associated table is not performed at the contractors location. These calibrations will be performed at LASP or the NIST SURF in Maryland.

  5. Date and location for the Bus Verification Review:

    This review will be held at the contractors facility, prior to the start of Observatory Intergration and Test.

  6. The LASP web page is: http://lasp.colorado.edu From there you should be able to click on the projects button and then SOLSTICE. Click on Eos under the SOLSTICE page to access questions and answers. All Answerable questions & answers will be listed here, as well as the State web site.
  7. Proposal submittal format, for the electronic version:

    PageMaker 6.5 (to be compatable with the Macintosh computer) or Acrobat is acceptable.

  8. The latest scheduled date for the SOLSTICE/SAVE mission MDR is Mid March 1999. In our present schedule, Phase B may run until October 1, 1999. Be aware that some Phase B and Phase C/D functions and schedule may overlap.
  9. Meeting locations and cost planning: For planning purposes, all meetings except instrument specific reviews/meetings and TIM's, will be held at the contractors location. Instrument specific reviews and meetings will be held at LASP, TIM's will be split between the 2 locations. Where possible, TIM's will be combined with other scheduled meetings.
  10. The correct on-orbit check out period is 90 days. The "10% of the total held as a final acceptance milestone" is 10% of the Phase E and I&T cost.
  11. The communications system shall be compatable with the NASA ground station network and CCSDS protocols.
  12. The minimum font size limit of 12 does NOT apply to figures, graphics, and tables. Any readable font size is permitted.
  13. Section IV, Offer Format and Information Required by Respondents:

    Under Section 1 (SOLSTICE/SAVE Technical Proposal), paragraph 2 - "Delivery dates associated with items not yet received or requiring procurement need to be accompanied with a written schedule commitment (hard copy only) from the supplying organization or subcontractor. In addition, the offer needs to show proof of ownership or loan/use agreements for existing hardware and equipment to be for SOLSTICE/SAVE." - this portion may be included as an appendix to the cost volume.

    Paragraph 3 - "Offeror needs to provide detailed schedules which include written descriptions of: 1) how new hardware and software designs and design modifications will be completed to support SOLSTICE/SAVE; 2) details of the bus assembly; 3) details of bus integration, instrument integration, and launch vehicle integration." - this portion may be included as an appendix to the technical volume.

    Section 5: "Existing subcontractor plans, procedures, formats, and documentation systems developed for high reliability space programs are preferred." We really do wish to see an existing plan as opposed to one tailored for this mission.

    The cost exhibits requested "by the breakdown listed in the Guidelines above" are referring to the sample WBS.

  14. The dollars for the cost proposal should be real year dollars with the NASA standard inflation rate.
  15. Paragraph 4.3.8.3.2 in the SOW:

    "The responsibility for writing. maintaining, and gaining approval of the ICD" is with the contractor, not LASP.

  16. SOW Paragraph 4.2.2:

    The 10,000 hours of senior engineer time should be costed as part of the Phase B Cost plus Fixed Fee. This Phase B function can and probably will overlap with Phase C/D.

  17. The selection and procurment of the star trackers and solar sensors is the responsibility of the contractor. Mounting of these units will be on the SOLSTICE F channel optical bench. The cost of these units is not part of the Spacecraft cost cap, however the cost of these units must be broken out in your cost proposal.
  18. Regardless of design analysis, the spacecraft structure is required to pass acceptance testing.
  19. RFP, Section F, Paragraph 3:

    This optional additional material may be submitted as an attachment or appendix.

  20. Organizational charts for Performance Assurance, and Configuration and Data Management Organizations should be provided for both the entire company and how these organizations will support the SAVE program. This material is not counted against the page limit and should be included as an appendix to the Technical proposal.
  21. Please provide the anticipated start and completion dates for each of the following phases/activities:
    Phase B
    Phase C/D
    Observatory I&T
    Phase E

    To clarify the requirement for the end of the PDR phase - The desired schedule is intended to be flexable so the intended meaning is:

    the phase B could end as early as March 99 or as late as Oct. 1 1999. The engineering support study hours may extend to overlap with the phase C effort beyond Oct. 1 1999.

    The Spacecraft phase C may start any time after Oct 1 1999 to optimize the effort as proposed by the spacecraft vendor to meet the requirements of launch and I & T.

  22. Is it acceptable to submit an alternate WBS that provides the same degree of information and depth as the sample WBS presented on page 110-111 of the RFP?

    LASP desires potential contractors utilize the WBS format as provide in the RFP. This format will allow accurate comparison between bids, for evaluation purposes.

  23. Are there specific GFY funding restraints that should/must be considered in structuring our cost proposal?

    No.

  24. Please confirm that page 8 of the RFP requires an electronic copy of Section 1, Technical Proposal only.

    Due to possible conflicts with format of the elctronic version, the Technical Proposal is the only portion required to be an electronic copy.

  25. Q: How Stringent are the operating temperature limits for the F,G,S and E channel components? Especially on the hot side (+10 C)?

    A: In general these limits are driven by the science measurement accuracy requirements and the effect of temperature on the response of the detectors. Selection of the upper limit is three fold: 1) signal to noise ratio deterioration in the F and G detectors with higher temperatures, 2) variation of photocathode sensitivity with temperature for the F & G detectors and, 3) thermal control of the S channel detector is lost if the instrument temperature exceeds +21 C. Instrument mounting plate temperature limits were chosen so the instruments will operate near temperatures at or slighly cooler than +20 C (also the temperature at which the instruments are calibrated and characterized).

  26. What is meant by "orbit average temperature" as stated in the table in section 3.5? Does this imply that the temperature can vary beyond the limits in a transient sense, as long as the average, over the span of an orbit is in the specified range?

    A:"Orbit average temperature", refering to the table in section 3.5 of the performance specification, is the average temperature of the instrument mounting plate, over the span of an orbit during normal operations. The temperature of the mounting plate may vary, in a transient sense, about the average temperature by 5 C. For example; the mounting plate temperature may vary from +15 to +5 C throughout an orbit. The temperature of the mounting plate (at the instrument interfaces) should not exceed the range from -15 to +15 C during normal operations throughout the mission.

  27. If LASP is to determine the thermal properties of the instrument interface and placement of thermal blankets, then what specifically does LASP require from the contractor in terms of thermal control? Is it that the spacecraft contractor will assist LASP in determining those details?

    A: The temperature requirements are science driven and were levied on the mounting plate in place of heater power requirements for the instruments. The spacecraft contractor shall work with LASP in determining the most efficient approach to thermal control of the instruments and assist in determining details of the instrument interfaces.

  28. Define Phases per funding and date:

    Study Phase - Through October 1, 1999 - Cost plus Fixed Fee

    Design/Build Phase - S/C Delivery March 2002 - Firm Fixed Price

    I&T, Early Orbit Ops, Normal Ops - Start March 2002 - Cost plus Fixed Fee

    Launch is projected to be December 2002, with a 90 day checkout.

  29. How important is it to achieve 1 deg/sec minimum rate vs. getting to the target in the allowed length of time?

    We need to get to the target in the allowed length of time.

  30. New news on the WBS format.

    Due to several inquires as to format and content, we have decided to allow bidders to use their standard WBS.

  31. Paragraph 4.3 of the Statement of Work requires the contractor to provide a spacecraft simulator to LASP. Is it necessary for the simulator to generate attitude data, or is it sufficient for the simulator to provide only those functions associated with the instrument-spacecraft interface?

    The instrument-S/C interface is sufficient.

  32. Version 4.0 of the Pegasus Users Guide was released about two weeks ago. It includes a random vibration specification that has higher amplitudes around 40 Hz than shown in earlier documents. Should the RFP response continue to use Release 3.5 of the Pegasus XL Vehicle Description Document as listed in Paragraph 1.2 of the Performance Specification, or should the new document be used for the RFP response?

    It is unclear whether or not all bidders have the new document. Therefore bidders may use either document - just specifiy which one is used for their proposal.

  33. Table 1 of the Performance Specification lists the Pegasus XL injection error as + 55 km, + 110 km. Paragraph 2.4.2 of the Performance Specification references Interim Release 3.5 of the Pegasus XL Vehicle Description Document (VDD) for injection error data. The VDD indicates an injection error of + 19 km, + 110 km. Which values should be used for the RFP?

    Use the numbers in the VDD (also, see question 34)


| Home | Mission Ops | Data | Science | Education | Personnel |
| HaleBopp | UARS [ EOS ] Comments | LASP |