Earth Venture Continuity-1 (EVC-1) PEA QAs

Q1 : What are the exact orbital parameters required of an EVC-1 mission?

A1 : As stated in the EVC-1 Program Element Appendix, the goal of EVC-1 is a capable observing system to measure top of the atmosphere short wave, long wave, and total radiative fluxes, in order to allow seamless continuation of the NASA Earth Radiation Budget climate data records. The proposer has the responsibility of designing a mission that supports this goal. Posted 11/28/2018

Q2 : What are the opportunities offered to the public for access to the observations to be made by an EVC-1 mission?

A2 : As stated in the EVC-1 Program Element Appendix, mission data will be made fully available to the public as quickly as possible, and no longer than six months following its collection, barring exceptional circumstances. Posted 11/28/2018

Q3 : What is the new type of ERB CDRs to be produced as a result of this solicitation? That is, what are the differences between level 1A, level 1B and the previous levels and their types of data and images?

A3 : As stated in the EVC-1 Program Element Appendix, a major output of the investigation will be the production of level 1A and 1B radiances, which, when combined with any unique (observing-system specific) algorithms for radiance to radiative flux conversion, will enable the continuation of the NASA ERB CDR. The NASA Earth Radiation Budget Science Project will produce the higher-level data products. The difference between level 1A and 1B data products is described at: https://earthdata.nasa.gov/earth-science-data-systems-program/policies/data-information-policy/data-levels. Posted 11/28/2018

Q4 : What is the mechanism created to provide a continuity from the previous generation data products to the latest and future generation's data products of the ERB CDR data?

A4 : As stated in the EVC-1 Program Element Appendix, it is the responsibility of the proposer to propose the specific observing system with appropriate characteristics to allow continuity of the NASA ERB CDR to be maintained. Posted 11/28/2018

Q5 : For the JPSS FMO option, who is responsible for instrument operations?

A5 : As stated in the EVC-1 PEA, The PI will be responsible for instrument operations during the one-year EVC-1 Phase E. After handoff to RBSP, the RBSP will conduct instrument operations. Posted 12/18/2018

Q6 : For the JPSS FMO option, who is responsible for the science processing ground system?

A6 : As stated in the EVC-1 PEA, the PI is responsible for all necessary components of the science processing ground system external to the existing ground system supporting the JPSS satellites. The following table clarifies PIMMC costs:Posted 12/18/2018

Costs Within PIMMC
FMO (JPSS)	FMO (Hosted)	SCM
Instrument	Instrument	Observing system, including instrument(s) and spacecraft
One yr of science operations	One yr of science operations	One yr of science operations
All associated project development costs (PM, SE, documentation, etc)	All associated project development costs (PM, SE, documentation, etc)	All associated project development costs (PM, SE, documentation, etc)
Additional systems required to operate the instrument or collect data	Complete ground system including science processing	Complete ground system including science processing
Software and algorithms	Software and algorithms	Software and algorithms
Transitioning operations to RBSP after one yr of operations	Transitioning operations to RBSP after one yr of operations	Transitioning operations to RBSP after one yr of operations



Costs Outside PIMMC
Accommodations	Accommodations	Access to Space
Use of the JPSS/EDOS ground systems	Hosting Services
RBSP Support	RBSP Support	RBSP Support

Q7 : How will proposers be guaranteed free flow of information from the RBSP during the proposal development, and open interaction with NASA Langley Research Center (LaRC) scientists and engineers on all aspects of level-1 data ingestion in the CERES algorithms and creation of higher-level products?

A7 : During the proposal period, the POC for all questions is the Program Scientist, David Considine, as specified in the EVC-1 PEA. Following selection, RBSP personnel will be available to work with the selected proposer per direction and oversight of NASA Headquarters. Posted 12/18/2018

Q8 : How will experts on the selected EVC team be supported so they can share their knowledge with the RBSP beyond the first year of operations?

A8 : Proposers should plan for and submit a proposal that provides for a complete transition of knowledge to RBSP during the first year of operations required for observing system operation and generation of L1 science data products. Posted 12/18/2018

Q9 : Are costs of the spacecraft and launch a part of accommodations or not for all three alternatives scenarios?

A9 : As stated in Section 2.3 of the EVC-1 PEA, for the FMO options - Hosted Payload and JPSS - launch costs will be provided either as part of the hosting agreement or JPSS. For the SCM option, all costs associated with access to space will be covered outside of PIMMC. For the SCM option, spacecraft costs will be covered within the PIMMC. Please see the table in the response to Question 6. Posted 12/18/2018

Q10 : For the FMO options, is the PI required to deliver to NASA the fully-operational instrument by the date stated in the PEA?

A10 : The PI is required to deliver the fully operational instrument by the PEA stated date, which will then be integrated onto either the JPSS or PI-identified host platform. Posted 12/18/2018

Q11 : The SCM alternative requires a launch readiness date no later than January 1, 2027. This appears more in line with a complete mission (e.g., EVM like GeoCarb) with complete responsibility for all under the PI, including the accommodations/launch. However, this section states that "access to space with be covered by NASA outside the PIMMC."

A11 : As stated in the PEA, for the SCM option the PI must identify in the proposal arrangements and costs for access to space, however, these costs will be covered by NASA outside of the PIMMC. Posted 12/18/2018

Q12 : Will NASA provide a longer period between the closing date for responses to questions and the proposal due date (currently one week) in order to allow more time for proposers to make adjustments to their proposals?

A12 : As stated in the EVC-1 PEA, questions can be asked throughout the period between PEA release and the due date. Questions will be answered as soon as possible after their receipt, so there is ample time to ask questions and receive responses within the current framework. Posted 12/18/2018

Q13 : Section 6.1 of the PEA states, "The Intrinsic Science Merit of the Proposed Investigation is weighted at 30%." Are we to understand that new Intrinsic Science Merit will be weighted higher than providing continuity? Can you please clarify and/or further define the weighting between Intrinsic Science Merit and Continuity?

A13 : The answer to this question is covered in the SALMON3 AO, Section 7.2, which describes the proposal evaluation process and the meaning of the term "Intrinsic Science, Exploration, or Technology Merit of the Proposed Investigation." "Intrinsic Science Merit" refers to both PI-proposed science activities AND the extent to which the proposed observing system will enable continuity of the ERB CDR. Intrinsic Science Merit (weighted 30%) includes: The nature and priority of the proposed investigation's science objectives, the programmatic value of the investigation, the likelihood of science success, and the science value of any proposed threshold investigation. Experiment Science Implementation Merit and Feasibility of the Proposed Investigation (weighted 40%) includes: The merit of the instruments and investigation design for addressing the science goals and objectives, the probability of technical success, the merit of the data analysis, availability and archiving plan, the science resiliency, and the probability of investigation team success. (Please see responses to Questions 22 and 35 as well.) Posted 12/18/2018

Q14 : In Section 2.3a FMO (Hosted Payload) it specifically states that the PI is responsible for the ground system, but this is not stated in FMO (JPSS). Does this mean that NASA will pay for all ground system costs for the FMO (JPSS) flight option? Can you please elaborate on the definition of ground system? Does this include all of the infrastructure to develop the command and control system?

A14 : Please see the table in the response to question 6. For the FMO (JPSS) option, NASA will cover all costs associated with the use of the existing JPSS ground system. The PI is required to cover any additional systems required to operate the instrument or collect and process data. Posted 12/18/2018

Q15 : How is the EVC-1 instrument going to be accommodated on the JPSS platform? Does the observatory come out of storage or is it anticipated that the EVC-1 instrument will be available for integration with the other JPSS instruments?

A15 : For the purposes of proposal evaluation, the proposer should assume that the instrument will be integrated onto the JPSS spacecraft along with all other instruments. Any required adjustments to the plan will be considered part of the accommodations costs and will be covered outside of PIMMC. Posted 12/18/2018

Q16 : A stated AO objective is to "Deliver the observing system by a date that allows overlap with currently operational instruments sufficient to conduct the inter-calibration necessary to preserve continuity." It is unclear what action is expected of the PI regarding this objective, as it outside of the proposer's control. The delivery date for the instrument is already required to be no later than Jan 1 2025 for FMO and Jan 1 2027 for SCM. Please clarify.

A16 : An overarching programmatic goal of EVC-1 is to provide sufficient overlap to maintain continuity of the ERB CDR. The latest possible dates have been chosen in the EVC-1 PEA to achieve this goal. The likelihood that this can be achieved decreases with any schedule delays. EVC-1 proposals will be evaluated on the basis of the probability that they can achieve their proposed schedule as described in the SALMON-3 AO, an element of the proposal that is controlled by the proposer. Posted 12/18/2018

Q17 : The PEA states that: "The PI is required to work with the DAAC and the RBSP to ensure that the mission data are delivered in a format that meets NASA requirements." What are these requirements? Will these be provided?

A17 : Please see Sections 1.2 and 4.5 of the PEA for general information. Specific data formats may be dependent on the nature of the proposed observing system, however, a general discussion of the structure of the Production Data Sets produced by the NASA EDOS facility for the CERES instruments (including the FM5 instrument on Suomi-NPP and FM6 instrument on NOAA 20) can be found here. Posted 12/18/2018

Q18 : Requirement N-19 states that: "The PI shall be responsible for ensuring that a system is in place whereby all the mission data necessary to produce EVC-1 Level 1 - Level 4 data products during the first year of operations will be delivered to the assigned Distributed Active Archive Center (DAAC) and the RBSP." Is the proposer required to generate the data products as well or only ensure that the data is available for the RBSP to process/generate?

A18 : As stated in the EVC-1 PEA, the proposer is not responsible for producing L2 - L4 data products, even during the one-year of Phase E operations, which will be produced by the RBSP. However, the PI is responsible for ensuring that the RBSP has all the mission data, metadata, and lower-level data products necessary to produce the higher-level data products. Posted 12/18/2018

Q19 : To ensure we are in full compliance with the SALMON-3 AO and draft PEA we would like a clarification on the final proposal submission. Requirement 105 of the SALMON-3 AO states that in addition to e-submission (NSPIRES), 2 CD-ROMs containing electronic files of the proposal are required. Could you please confirm that both electronic submission and CD-ROMs are required? Is the deadline for CD-ROMs submission different that NSPIRES electronic submission?

A19 : The due date for CD-ROMs is listed in Section 7 of the PEA. Posted 12/18/2018

Q20 : In Section 2.3: EVC-1 Flight Options, Focused Mission of Opportunity options, the FMO(JPSS) does not state that Ground Systems fall under the PIMMC while under FMO (Hosted Payloads) it explicitly identifies Ground Systems as being included in the PIMMC. If a proposal team pursues the FMO (JPSS) option do they not have to account (cost) for use of the JPSS and ESDIS ground systems/data pipes, nor the processing costs at a NASA DAAC? Please provide clarification.

A20 : Please see the table that is presented in the response to Question 6 for clarification. Posted 12/18/2018

Q21 : In section 4.4.3 Payload Risk Classification it explicitly states a Payload Risk Classification. Please clarify the necessary risk classification of a spacecraft bus if the Small Complete Mission (SCM) option is selected by a proposal team.

A21 : As stated in the EVC-1 PEA, the EVC-1 mission has a payload risk classification of Class C as defined in NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 8705.4. For the SCM option, please refer to Section 5.3.4 of the Salmon-3 AO. Note also that the adequacy and robustness of the proposed flight systems is evaluated by the TMC review panel as described in evaluation factor C-3, and adequacy of the proposed spacecraft design and design margins is evaluated by the TMC panel as described in evaluation factor C-2. Posted 12/18/2018

Q22 : In Section 6.1 of the EVC-1 PEA, Scientific/Technical Evaluation Factors, the following is stated: The Intrinsic Science, Exploration or Technology Merit of the Proposed Investigation is weighted at 30%. Please describe the scope of 'Intrinsic Science'. Does intrinsic science only apply to the PI led scientific analyses which are above and beyond the standard products, or is demonstration that the standard products seamlessly allow continuity of the CDR considered Intrinsic Science as well?

A22 : The meaning of the term "Intrinsic Science, Exploration or Technology Merit of the Proposed Investigation" is described in the SALMON3 AO, Section 7.2. The term includes both PI-proposed science activities AND the extent to which the proposed observing system will enable continuity of the ERB CDR, As stated in the AO, Intrinsic Science Merit (weighted 30% for EVC-1) includes: The nature and priority of the proposed investigation's science objectives, the programmatic value of the investigation, the likelihood of science success, and the science value of any proposed threshold investigation. Experiment Science Implementation Merit and Feasibility of the Proposed Investigation (weighted 40% for EVC-1) includes: The merit of the instruments and investigation design for addressing the science goals and objectives, the probability of technical success, the merit of the data analysis, availability and archiving plan, the science resiliency, and the probability of investigation team success. (Please see responses to Questions 13 and 35 as well.) Posted 12/18/2018

Q23 : Could you please clarify how the evaluation criteria are weighted. E.g., Are the new evaluation Factors B-8 and B-9, and Factor C-6, equal in weight to all of the other B, C factors combined?

A23 : As stated in the EVC-1 PEA, the Intrinsic Science Merit of the Proposed Investigation, the Experiment Science Implementation Merit and Feasibility of the Proposed Investigation, and the Technical Management and Cost (TMC) Feasibility of the Proposed Investigation Implementation will be weighted 30%, 40%, and 30%, respectively. The Factors B-8 and B-9 are included in the Experiment Science Implementation Merit and Feasibility and Factor C-6 is included in the TMC Feasibility. In order to provide flexibility in the evaluation process, neither the SALMON3 AO nor the EVC-1 PEA provides any other specific weighting of these individual factors, as this will depend on the judgement of the members of the evaluation panels. For a detailed description of the evaluation process, please see Section 7 of the SALMON - 3 AO. Posted 12/18/2018

Q24 : The draft EVC-1 PEA states that PI-led science investigation must advance understanding of radiances, radiative fluxes, and the ERB. There is some confusion about what it means when it says "advance the understanding of radiative fluxes" because this is something that the science team at NASA LaRC is responsible for and there is extensive documentation that already exists on how this process is done. Please clarify.

A24: The EVC-1 mission is intended to both enable the continuation of the NASA ERB CDR and provide an opportunity for the PI to pursue an independent science investigation. This science investigation should advance our understanding of science relating to the measurement of ERB, utilizing EVC-1 measurements. In this context the phrase "radiances, radiative fluxes, and the ERB" is meant to be taken holistically. There is no requirement that the independent science investigation be based on radiative flux data products. The merit of the proposed investigation is one of the characteristics of the proposal that will be evaluated by the science review panel. Posted 12/18/2018

Q25 : In Section 1.2 of the PEA, it states the solicitation will result in level 1A and 1B radiances. Is the RBSP responsible for Level 2-4 products? If so, what is the intent of Requirement N-11? It seems this could be requiring a duplication of the effort that will be executed by the RBSP.

A25 : As stated in the EVC-1 PEA, the PI will not be responsible for producing radiative flux data products, which will be produced by the RBSP. However, as stated in Section 1.1, EVC-1 is intended to provide a mechanism that will allow NASA to seamlessly extend the NASA ERB CDR. Requirement N-11 requires the proposer to describe how the measurements from the EVC-1 instrument could be used to produce radiative flux data products with a high level of continuity, which will allow evaluation of the capability of the observing system. Posted 12/18/2018

Q26 : Is requirement N-12 applicable if using the JPSS spacecraft or JPSS orbital parameters?

A26 : Yes. Posted 12/18/2018

Q27 : What is the reliability probability required at end of life for a Class C mission (<2 years) with an extended life requirement (3-5 years)? Given this tailored life requirement, will NASA provide additional guidance on tailored MA requirements within the solicitation?

A27 : 27 NASA wishes the EVC-1 instrument to operate for a full five years or at least three years. Proposing organizations should base their approaches for meeting this requirement on their organization's approaches for calculating lifetime probabilities. Design features that serve to ensure baseline operations of five years and threshold operations of three years should be discussed in EVC-1 proposals and will be assessed in the evaluation process as described in Section 7 of the SALMON - 3 AO. Posted 12/18/2018

Q28 : Is the concept of "affordable missions enabled by innovations in design or process" consistent with a cost capped, low risk mission?

A28 : As stated in the EVC-1 PEA, the Risk Classification for EVC-1 is Class C, and EVC-1 is cost-capped as are all Earth Venture missions. NASA seeks innovative approaches resulting in an observing system capable of maintaining the ERB CDR within these constraints. Posted 12/18/2018

Q29 : For FMO: Hosted Payload, how can a proposer identify specific hosting options and associated costs seven years or more before launch? The commercial sector does not firm up these costs until about 3-years before launch.

A29 : NASA recognizes the difficulty of identifying specific hosting options and associated costs many years before launch. Section 2.3 of the EVC-1 PEA now states that proposals will be evaluated on the basis of the specificity of proposed hosting options and associated costs, as well as the appropriate partner costs. Posted 12/18/2018

Q30 : Does NASA pay for the hosting services costs, for the FMO: Hosted Payload option?

A30 : Please see the table included in the response to Question 6. Hosting services costs will be paid for by NASA ESD outside of the PIMMC. However, these costs must be identified and stated in the proposal. Posted 12/18/2018

Q31 : Does NASA believe RBI can be completed in the $150M based on an independent cost estimate?

A31 : NASA has identified $150 million as an appropriate cost cap for EVC-1 PIMMC. Posted 12/18/2018

Q32 : Does a PI have to provide ancillary data for supporting Level 2-4 products or develop a mission system that clearly describes any ancillary data necessary for processing the Level 2-4 data without being responsible for delivery?

A32 : Please see the response to Question 18. Posted 12/18/2018

Q33 : How will you ensure fair/equitable evaluation of multiple proposals, if one chooses classified information to justify the maturity/heritage of their instrument? This may complicate an accurate, integrated evaluation of the proposal since the evaluation panel will not have access to this classified data.

A33 : Procedures for dealing with classified material are spelled out in Section 5.2.1 of the EVC-1 PEA. Posted 12/18/2018

Q34 : In Section 2.2, Focused Mission of Opportunity (FMO (JPSS)), the specific JPSS mission is not specified. Will NASA clarify whether or not a proposed schedule needs to address the JPSS-3 schedule or a subsequent JPSS mission?

A34 : The EVC-1 solicitation does not specify a particular JPSS mission as a target. Proposers should construct a schedule based on the guidance given in the EVC-1 PEA. Also, please see the response to Question 15. Posted 12/18/2018

Q35 : In Section 6.1 there is a discussion of the weighting of "Intrinsic Science Merit of the Proposed Investigation", which we understood to mean new science above and beyond what has been measured historically, and "Experiment Science Implementation Merit and Feasibility of the Proposed Investigation" to maintain data continuity. Will NASA further delineate the weighting to identify NASA's goal of intrinsic science versus ERB data continuity?

A35 : Sections 7.2.2 and 7.2.3 of the SALMON-3 AO, available here, define the criteria of "Intrinsic Science Merit" and "Experiment Science Implementation Merit and Feasibility." The criteria do not refer to the EVC-1 goals of enabling ERB data continuity and PI-defined science investigation, as assumed by the question. For the EVC-1 solicitation, both the capability of the proposed mission to enable ERB data continuity and any proposed research and analysis activities will be considered to constitute "Intrinsic Science Merit," the merit of which will be evaluated according to the factors listed in Section 7.2.2 of the SALMON-3 AO. As stated in Section 1.1 of the EVC-1 PEA, a primary desired characteristic of the EVC-1 observing system is acquisition of measurements that will allow seamless maintenance and extension of existing ERB climate data records. As stated in Section 2.2 of the EVC-1 PEA, the proposer must strike a balance between the various EVC-1 objectives and justify their choices in their proposal. (Please see responses to Questions 13 and 22 as well.) Posted 12/18/2018

Q36 : In Section 6.3.1 of the EVC-1 PEA, separate contractual agreements between NASA and the proposing team members are mentioned. Can NASA please clarify under what teaming or partnering conditions would separate contractual agreements apply, when traditionally the lead institution disperses the funds to the partnering organizations or vendors?

A36 : The EVC-1 mission will be managed by the Earth System Science Pathfinder Program Office. Language appearing in the EVC-1 PEA regarding multiple contracts is standard language appearing in all Earth Venture solicitations managed by ESSP, designed to cover both typical and unusual situations. In all cases, the PI will have the responsibility of defining specific funding levels for each of the partner organizations. Posted 12/18/2018

Q37 : Evaluation Factor C-6 specifies consideration of innovations in design or process that reduce cost for future copies but there is no definition of future builds. Will NASA provide more definition of the number of future copies and the anticipated schedule build for estimation purposes?

A37 : A primary goal of the EVC program is to develop and demonstrate affordable approaches to maintaining long-term continuity of key observations such as Earth Radiation Budget. Therefore, EVC-1 proposals will be evaluated on the basis of features which would facilitate low-cost maintenance of measurement continuity, such as the cost of future copies, as described in evaluation Factors B-9 and C-6, in addition to other evaluation factors such as the degree to which the proposed observing system can maintain seamless continuity of the ERB CDR. At this point, NASA cannot anticipate a specific number of future instrument copies. Posted 12/18/2018

Q38 : Proposers who do not have a prior relationship with Earth Radiation Budget Science Project (RBSP) and are therefore not intimately familiar with the specific details of the RBSP data product algorithms might find themselves at a disadvantage in the evaluation process, as this lack of familiarity could be perceived as a technical weakness. Will the evaluation process take this into account?

A38 : A prior relationship of a proposing organization with RBSP is not an evaluation criterion for these proposals. The evaluation criteria that will be applied are specified in Section 7 of the SALMON-3 AO, as amended by the EVC-1 PEA. The evaluation panelists will be instructed to utilize the evaluation criteria to assess the proposal. Please note that there is a significant amount of information concerning the Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES) instruments and the data product algorithms via a link in the EVC-1 Library at: https://essp.larc.nasa.gov/EVC-1/evc-1_library.html. Please also see the answer to Q44. Posted 03/05/2019

Q39 : Given the change in the proposal submittal timeline, what is NASA's expected date for announcement of award?

A39 : NASA's expected data for the announcement of the award remains unchanged at this time. Posted 03/05/2019

Q40 : How will questions and answers that may provide competitive insights (i.e., proprietary questions) be handled?

A40 : Answers to questions about the PEA that are helpful and informative to proposers will be publicly posted on the EVC-1 Acquisition Home Page, at https://essp.larc.nasa.gov/EVC-1/evc-1_qas.html. No information concerning the identity of the questioner will be released with the question. NASA is not allowed to reveal proprietary information. Any proprietary information that is contained within a question should be clearly labeled as such, and posted responses will be crafted such that proprietary information is not released. Proposers are encouraged to check the website routinely. Posted 03/05/2019

Q41 : Who are the members of the Radiation Budget Science Project (RBSP) and what are their individual assignments with respect to supporting responses to proposers' submitted questions?

A41 : The RBSP generate the Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES) Earth Radiation Budget data sets. The link to the CERES web site is available from the EVC-1 library and is: https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov. All questions regarding the EVC-1 PEA are to be directed to the EVC-1 Program Scientist, David B. Considine, at the email address: david.b.considine@nasa.gov Posted 03/05/2019

Q42 : Since the SALMON-3 AO states, in Section 4.3.4, that "The inability of NASA to accommodate the requested funding profile may be a reason for nonselection of a proposal," what is the EVC-1 program element funding profile (i.e., dollars per Government Fiscal Year)? What flexibility exists for adjusting the funding profile to accommodate proposed expenditure plans?

A42 : Details about the required budget information to be submitted as part of a response to the EVC-1 PEA is contained in Section 4.4 of the EVC-1 PEA. No further information is available to proposers concerning NASA's assumed funding profile for EVC-1 or its flexibility for accommodating proposed profiles. Following selection, the ESSP program office will work with the PI to establish the specific profile. Posted 03/05/2019

Q43 : The EVC-1 PEA states (in Section 4.4.3) that the Risk Classification for EVC-1 is Class C. What is the assigned Mission Category? If a Mission Category has not been assigned, is it reasonable to assume in proposals that the Mission Category for EVC-1 is Category 3?

A43 : It is reasonable to consider the Mission Category for EVC-1 to be Category 3. Posted 03/05/2019

Q44 : Will a proposed solution that satisfies the threshold requirements defined in the SWG Report's Tables 5-1 be considered to satisfy the continuity requirement? If not, will a proposed solution that satisfies the objective requirements defined in the SWG Report's Tables 5-1 be considered to satisfy the continuity requirement?

A44 : As stated in the EVC-1 PEA, the SWG Report does not establish any requirements for the EVC-1 observing system. The report is provided as a reference for EVC-1 proposers, and all requirements are contained either within the PEA or the SALMON-3 AO. As stated in Section 2.2 of the PEA, continuity of the NASA Earth Radiation Budget data record is one of the objectives of the EVC-1 mission, and the PI must justify their choices regarding the maintenance of the NASA ERB data record in their proposal. In addition, Requirement N-5 requires that proposers explicitly describe and justify the extent to which their observing system will introduce discontinuities in the ERB CDR. These choices will be evaluated by the EVC-1 science peer review panel in the manner described in Section 7 of the SALMON-3 AO, as amended by the EVC-1 PEA. Posted 03/05/2019

Q45 : Please clarify whether the SWG Report's Table 5-1 "Radiometric Precision" item includes a coverage factor, k, of k=2, consistent with the paragraph 5.1.7 text.

A45 : The SWG Report is included in the EVC-1 library, as is, as a potentially useful reference for EVC-1 proposers to use at their own discretion. It is the Proposers' responsibility to determine the appropriate specifications that would achieve their proposed science objectives. Posted 03/05/2019

Q46 : The EVC-1 PEA paragraph 4.2 states that "[p]roposers can assume that all of the government-owned equipment and technical information that resulted from the cancelled RBI project is available for their use if their proposal is accepted." Is there any government-owned equipment and technical information from the CERES project (e.g., spare parts, EDU hardware, etc.) that proposers can assume is available for use if their proposal is accepted?

A46 : No CERES project equipment or information will be made available as GFE for EVC-1 proposals. However, proposers may make arrangements with the custodian of the CERES equipment and technical information for use on EVC-1. These arrangements should be clearly documented in the proposal. Updated 05/06/2019

Q47 : Could NASA confirm that NASA Safety and Mission Assurance is satisfied that all RBI flight hardware remains suitable for use as flight hardware, and that any such hardware delivered to the winning EVC-1 proposal teamwill be still suitable for use as flight hardware?

A47 : Regarding items of RBI GFE that will be made available to the selectee of the EVC-1 solicitation, the Government does not warrant the condition of the items or even that the hardware will work. Posted 03/05/2019

Q48 : How soon can NASA deliver any requested RBI hardware to the winning proposal team after announcement of award?

A48 : Delivery of any requested RBI hardware to the winning proposal team after the announcement of the award will be negotiated as part of the Authority to Proceed. Posted 03/05/2019

Q49 : Is the test report for the Radiation Budget Instrument (RBI) Engineering Development Unit (EDU) calibration at Space Dynamics Laboratory (SDL) available to proposers?

A49 : The test report is not currently available. Because the report falls under Export Administration Regulations (EAR), we are working to understand the specific conditions that will allow the release of the report to interested parties. This answer will be updated if the status of the test report availability changes. Posted 04/19/2019

Q50 : Will there be a Request for Proposals (RFP) release and if so what release date is expected along with the due date for responses via NSPIRES and via CDROM?

A50 : NASA Headquarters will not release an RFP associated with EVC-1. The EVC-1 solicitation is a program element appendix (PEA) of the SALMON-3 Announcement of Opportunity (AO). Please consult the SALMON-3 AO and the EVC-1 PEA N for all details about the requirements of the EVC-1 mission, including proposal due dates. Posted 04/19/2019

Q51 : Updated Microsoft Excel Versions of the SALMON-3 AO budget tables available in the EVC-1 Library include Table B3b: Total Mission Cost FY$ Profile Template, in Fiscal Year 2022 Dollars (FY2022$). However, the AO states that the "The PIMMC cap for an Earth Venture Continuity is $150M in Fiscal Year (FY) 19 dollars." Please clarify.

A51 : The tables in question are meant to be templates and proposers may modify them to fit their proposed investigation; nevertheless, the "FY2022$" in the Table B3b template should read "FY2019$" for EVC-1 and to be consistent with PEA N. This has been corrected and Table B3b is now consistent with the EVC-1 PEA N that asks for budgetary information in FY19 dollars. Also, for the proposer's reference, the SALMON-3 AO describes acceptable procedures for converting between current-year and other year dollars. The EVC-1 library includes appropriate conversion tables in the case that those are needed by a proposing organization. Posted 04/19/2019

Q52 : In reference to the subject PEA, what is the Contract type that will be awarded for this effort?

A52 : The contract type is dependent on the situation of the selected proposal and award. Factors that affect contract type include but are not limited to scope of activity covered by the contract as well as institution type. Posted 04/19/2019

Q53 : For proposers wishing to use the RBI GFE built by Harris Corporation (the prime contractor for the RBI instrument), in the event that Harris submits a proposal to the EVC-1 PEA, how would the Government ensure a fair competition without the technical details of the GFE provided to all users?

A53 : The proposed use of GFE by any proposing team is at the discretion of the proposers and is furnished as is. Evaluation and selection of the EVC-1 proposals will be as described in the SALMON-3 AO and the EVC-1 PEA. Posted 04/19/2019

Q54 : Can you provide any guidance on technical deficiencies of the GFE, specifically non-conformities and spec waivers? Where improved performance would be most desirable?

A54 : We are unable to provide any guidance. Posted 04/19/2019

Q55 : Can you provide insight on any known obstacles with using the existing telescope system?

A55 : We are unable to provide any insight. Posted 04/19/2019

Q56 : Would there be any advantage for a potential architecture to split the visible wavelengths from the short wavelength bands?

A56 : Please see the EVC-1 PEA, which provides an overview of the mission objectives. The determination and justification of an appropriate observing system design to meet the objectives stated in the PEA is up to the proposer. Posted 04/19/2019

Q57 : The JPSS-2 Instrument MICD provides an RBI envelope above a Spacecraft Stand. Is the spacecraft stand included in the RBI mass budget?

A57 : The Excel spreadsheet titled "EVC JPSS Hosted Instrument Requirements.xlsx," available in the EVC-1 library, identify the mass requirements for an EVC-1 instrument to be attached to the JPSS platform. As shown in the document, the not to exceed (NTE) mass of instrument hardware on top of the stand is 82.5 kg. Also as shown in the document, the combined mass of a proposed instrument including stand and below-stand mounting is NTE 90 kg. Posted 04/19/2019

Q58 : On the RBI GFE Information Day Web Conference on 3/14 we were told that the presentation would be posted within 1 week to https://essp.larc.nasa.gov/EVC-1/evc-1_inddaywebex.html, but it is not there.

A58 : The RBI GFE Information Day Web Conference presentation is now available on the EVC-1 website. Posted 04/19/2019

Q59 : May offerors propose to include use of legacy hardware that is non-Radiation Budget Instrument hardware, if use of such non-RBI legacy hardware is approved by the custodian of that hardware and such hardware is available by means other than the EVC-1 AO process?

A59 : Neither the SALMON-3 AO nor the EVC-1 PEA explicitly constrain the use of non-RBI legacy hardware. Proposers are free to make arrangements with the custodian of the non-RBI legacy hardware for use on EVC-1. These arrangements should be clearly documented in the proposal. Updated 05/06/2019

Q60 : Section 4.4 of the EVC-1 PEA N states, "For FMO proposals, NASA will be responsible for the cost of accommodations."… "Proposals are required to include estimates for these costs, but ultimate accommodations or access to space costs will be determined after selection." The Tables B3 templates have a cost data row for "For FMO Hosted Payload: specific hosting options and associated costs." Does the statement above in Section 4.4 with respect to including estimates for these costs apply to FMO (JPSS)?

A60 :No. Section 2.3 of the EVC-1 PEA N states "NASA will identify the accommodations costs in coordination with the JPSS program, and will fund accommodations to integrate the payload to the JPSS spacecraft outside of the PIMMC." Posted 04/29/2019

Q61 : Requirement N-4 of the EVC-1 PEA states that EVC-1 scientific analyses can be proposed that continue for the duration of the 5-year baseline mission lifetime, using the PI-proposed EVC-1 data products, provided that the costs are included within the PIMMC. After the required handoff of operations to the RBSP following the one-year period of Phase E operations, will the EVC-1 team still have access to the proposed EVC-1 data products?

A61 :EVC-1 Level 0 and Level 1 data products generated during Phase E operations by the EVC-1 team will continue to be produced following Phase E, and the EVC-1 team will have access to these products for the duration of the baseline mission. Posted 05/02/2019

Q62 : Can the selected EVC-1 team continue to produce the Level 1 data products after the end of Phase E operations, for the full extent of the EVC-1 baseline mission?

A62 :The EVC-1 team can continue to produce Level 1 data products after the end of Phase E and transfer of operations to RBSP, provided all costs associated with that production are included within the PIMMC. Posted 05/02/2019

Q63 : For the FMO (JPSS) option, Section 2.3 EVC-1 Flight Options states "This option assumes utilization of the existing JPSS ground systems, including the NASA Earth Observing System (EOS) Data and Operations System (EDOS)". Question 6 (and Answer 6 (Table)) states that "Use of the JPSS/EDOS ground systems" are "Costs Outside of PIMMC." It is unclear whether or not a proposal needs to include costs associated with modification of the existing JPSS ground system to acquire, process and distribute EVC-1 science data.

A63 :Proposers can assume that any JPSS/EDOS ground system costs associated with the generation of EVC-1 Level 0 data products will be included within accommodation costs for the FMO (JPSS) option. However, all costs associated with the production of EVC-1 Level 1 data products shall be included in the PIMMC. Posted 05/08/2019

Q64 : Currently the JPSS Common Ground System (CGS) is not delivering CERES Raw Data Records (RDRs) directly to the NASA Science Data Segment (SDS) but only to NOAA ESPC (NOAA Environmental Satellite Processing Center), NOAA CLASS (NOAA Comprehensive Large Array-Data Stewardship System) and NASA GSFC Government Resources for Algorithm Verification, Independent Test and Evaluation (GRAVITE). Previously the JPSS CGS was providing CERES RDRs to NASA SDS through an ftp portal. However, the JPSS Level-1 requirements document of 3 March 2016 states that the JPSS shall make available all sensor science data acquired to the NASA Science Data Segment (SDS) service delivery point at the NOAA Satellite Operations Facility (NSOF).

For EVC-1 FMO (JPSS) Option:

Would CGS be required to deliver EVC-1 produced RDR and Sensor Data Record (SDR) data to the NASA SDS? If “Yes,” would the proposer be required to account for this in its proposal?
Would CGS be required to deliver EVC-1 produced RDR and SDR data to NOAA ESPC, NOAA CLASS and NASA GRAVITE as well, or just NASA SDS? If the former, would the proposer be required to account for this in its proposal?

A64 :Requirement N-19 of the EVC-1 PEA and Section 4.5.3 requires that the PI ensure that L0 and L1 data products will be delivered to the assigned Distributed Active Archive Center (DAAC) and the RBSP. For the FMO (JPSS) option, as specified in section 2.3 (a), the EVC-1 PEA assumes the use by proposers of the existing JPSS ground systems, including the NASA Earth Observing System Data and Operations System (EDOS). (EDOS currently receives CERES instrument and JPSS satellite data, produces the L0 files for the CERES instrument on the NOAA 20 spacecraft, and delivers the L0 data to the NASA Langley Distributed Active Archive Center (DAAC)). As stated in the EVC-1 PEA, costs associated with the utilization of the existing ground systems are not the responsibility of the PI within the PIMMC. Since the current ground system (including EDOS) does not produce L1 data products, the proposer must be responsible for costs associated with L1 data production and delivery within the PIMMC during the one-year period of operations proposed under the PIMMC. Posted 06/17/2019

Q65 : If an investigation team submits a proposal that contains an inherently low-risk cost approach, e.g., fixed-price instrument contract, would it be permitted for the proposal to include less than the minimum unencumbered cost reserve percentage of 25% (PEA requirement N-15) assuming that said proposer can thoroughly justify the proposed unencumbered cost reserve percentage?

A65 :Requirement N-15 of the EVC-1 PEA states that the minimum unencumbered cost reserve percentage for Phases A/B/C/D is 25%. Note also that Requirement 78 of the SALMON-3 AO states: "Proposals shall identify and justify the adequacy of the proposed Phases A/B/C/D unencumbered cost reserves. Proposals shall demonstrate at least the PEA-specific minimum Phases A/B/C/D unencumbered cost reserves percentage and shall demonstrate an approach to maintaining required unencumbered cost reserves through subsequent development phases." SALMON3 also states: "Proposals that are unable to show adequate unencumbered cost reserves are likely to be judged a high cost risk and not selected." Posted 06/17/2019

Q66 : PEA requirement N-8, bullet 3 states, “Provide the JPSS program with materials as required (e.g., documentation, instrument simulator, jitter model).” This requirement doesn’t clearly state the scope of the documentation, simulation and modeling required by the JPSS program. For example, section 5.5 SIMULATOR SOFTWARE within the Radiation Budget Instrument Statement of Work Revision L, it states that the contractor will develop a simulator using Wind River Simics (SOW-5.5-03). Additionally, the RBI Contract Data Requirements List/Data Requirements Descriptions (CDRL/DRD) identifies 7 CDRLS (SW-18 – SW-24) associated with the instrument simulator. Is the proposer required to provide this level of software simulator to JPSS? If not, will there be more definition of the scope of the required simulators? Additionally, should this effort be accounted for as an accommodation cost that is outside of the PIMMC?

A66 :At this time the required scope of the documentation, simulation and modeling required by the JPSS program has not yet been established. It is anticipated that such requirements will be established through interaction between the JPSS program and the EVC-1 awardee post selection. Neither the RBI Statement of Work nor any RBI CDRLs are part of the EVC-1 PEA. Posted 06/17/2019

Q67 : EVC-1 requires searchable electronic proposals. The figures are supposed to be converted in a machine-encoded text using optical character recognition (OCR). Microsoft has turned off support for .eps images in Office and Adobe Acrobat will not perform OCR if the proposal has text. Adobe Illustrator graphic output in Word will not retain the text contained in the graphics. Can you provide some guidance concerning how to achieve this?

A67 :This is a requirement of the SALMON-3 AO, Requirement B-5: "Electronic proposals shall be a single, searchable and unlocked..... Images (e.g., figures and scans) shall be converted into machine-encoded text using optical character recognition." The intent of this requirement is to facilitate review. There are a number widely used (e.g., Adobe Acrobat Pro) and freely available applications (e.g., Google Docs) which are capable of performing OCR and generating machine-readable pdf output from a scan. There is also software such as Microsoft PowerPoint that can be used to generate portable document format (PDF) illustrations with searchable text. For the purposes of the EVC-1 PEA, all text in tables and fact sheets shall be searchable and figure captions shall be searchable, but figure axis labels and legends need not be. Content of axis labels and legends can be described in the captions. Posted 06/18/2019

Q68 : Is there an error in the Earth Radiation Budget Science Working Group (ERBSWG) report, "Recommended Measurement and Instrument Characteristics for an Earth Venture Continuity Earth Radiation Budget Instrument," which is in the EVC-1 library? Specifically, in Table 5.1, page 26, it appears that the Radiometric Precision characteristics for Shortwave (SW) and Total (TOT) channels are interchanged if compared with a similar table from the Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES) flight model 6 (FM-6) Level 1 (L1) requirements document. Also, a coverage (k) factor of 3 was specified for FM-6 but there is no specification of coverage factor for Precision in the ERBSWG report.

A68 :Table 5.1 was taken from the NOAA Technical Report NESDIS 134, Table 3.1. [ Bates, J.J., X. Zhao, (eds), 2011: Report from the workshop on continuity of Earth radiation budget (CERB) observations: Post-CERES Requirements. NOAA Technical Report NESDIS 134. Washington, DC. [Available from: ftp://ftp.library.noaa.gov/noaa_documents.lib/NESDIS/TR_NESDIS/TR_NESDIS_134.pdf]]. The values in this table have the SW and TOT channel precision values interchanged when compared to those listed in the CERES FM-6 L1 requirements document. The table in the ERBSWG report also differs from the FM-6 L1 requirements in that it does not specify a coverage factor of 3. Note that as specified in the EVC-1 PEA, neither the recommendations contained in the ERBSWG report nor the CERES FM6 L1 requirements constitute requirements for responses to the EVC-1 PEA. Please refer to the PEA for specific mission requirements Posted 07/08/2019

Q69 : Section 4.6 of the PEA-N SALMON-3, Required Specifications for PEAs, includes the following requirement: "Section 4.3.4 of the SALMON-3 AO states that each PEA will specify any constraints on funding profile, selection date, and launch readiness date. For this PEA, those constraints are found in Section 4.4." However, PEA-N section 4.4 includes no constraints for the EVC-1 funding profile. At the same time, Requirement 75 in section 5.7.1 of the SALMON-3 AO states that no more than 25% of the PI-Managed Mission Cost shall be spent prior to KDP-C. Is it correct to conclude that because the EVC-1 PEA does not include constraints on the EVC-1 funding profiles, that Requirement 75 does not apply to proposals submitted under the EVC-1 PEA?

A69 :While the EVC-1 PEA does not provide any other constraints on the funding profile, proposers are still required to meet the 25% maximum expenditure of PIMMC prior to KDP C requirement specified in the SALMON-3 AO (Requirement 75). Note that the proposed cost profile, whatever it is, will be considered in the Technical, Cost, and Management evaluation, and as specified in the SALMON-3 AO, the proposed funding profile can be a reason for the nonselection of a proposal if it cannot be accommodated Posted 07/15/2019

Q70 : Given that the PIMMC for EVC-1 is $150M, and that there is a requirement to hold 25% unencumbered cost reserves for Phases A-D, should proposers assume that the contract award value would be the total proposal value including the unencumbered reserve required by NASA, or the value without the 25% unencumbered cost reserve? If the mission does not require usage of all of its unencumbered cost reserves as identified in the proposal, would the unspent reserves revert to NASA or remain with the proposer? In other words, would the utilization of the unencumbered cost reserves be considered an overrun even though it is within the cost cap?

A70 :The AO requirement of 25% Reserves on cost-to-go for Phases A through D are included within the PI-Managed Mission Cost (cost capped at $150M in FY 19 $). The PIMMC, including reserves, is the management responsibility of the Principal Investigator. Reserves are expected to be phased over the life cycle of the project to reflect coverage of risks and will be funded accordingly. There are no reserves held for the PIMMC outside of the PIMMC. Contract values may include the full value of the reserve depending on the team structure. Utilization of the unencumbered cost reserves would not be considered an overrun. Posted 07/16/2019

EVC-1 Acquisition Homepage

Earth Venture Continuity-1 (EVC-1) 2018 Acquisition

Earth Venture Continuity - 1 (EVC-1) PEA Questions & Answers

EVC-1 Questions and Answers: 12/18/2018

EVC-1 Add'l Info