NASA Logo, National Aeronautics and Space Administration
 

EVI-5 Acquisition Homepage

Earth Venture - Instruments 5 (EVI-5)

Earth Venture Instrument-5 (EVI-5) 2018 Acquisition

 

Earth Venture Instrument-5 (EVI-5) PEA Questions & Answers

SCIENCE MISSION DIRECTORATE (SMD) ACQUISITION COMMUNICATION POLICY:
Proposers are advised that only the Announcement of Opportunity, these Questions and Answers (Q&A), and any formal communications documented by the EVI-5 Program Scientist are maintained and considered as binding during the Evaluation, Categorization and Selection processes that would be applicable to this Announcement. Verbal, or other, unofficial communications with NASA, or other, personnel are non-binding and should not be considered as advice, guidelines, requirements, commitments or agreements for the purposes of this AO. By far, one of the most important SMD activities is the solicitation and selection of research investigations for NASA funding. Proposers and proposing colleagues should ensure that critical decisions are not based on erroneous, pre-selection hearsay information by asking for clarification through these Q&A and requesting that the Program Scientist document any proposal-specific communications with NASA officials.
 
Below are the answers to questions received to date. Similar questions may have been combined and answered as one question. If you have additional questions or feel your question was not answered, please submit an additional question.
 

 

EVI-5 Questions and Answers: 08/31/2018


 
Q1 :   Would proposing to deliver an instrument integrated onto a SmallSat bus ready for launch be responsive to the EVI-5 solicitation as long as the cost falls within the PI-Managed Mission Cost Cap?
A1 : No. The Draft EVI-5 PEA of the SALMON-3 AO solicits Instrument Investigations, where instruments are delivered ready for integration into a spacecraft. Investigation teams can propose instruments for which the costs fall well below the PI-Managed Mission Cost Cap. The integration of the instrument onto a bus occurs outside of the PI-Managed Mission Cost Cap and is NASA's responsibility. Posted 05/08/2018
Q2 :   Can letters of endorsement from potential end-users in the Applications community be included in the Proposal Appendix J. 2 with the other letters of commitment?
A2 : Yes. Posted 05/08/2018
Q3 :   Where can the Common Instrument Interface information be found?
A3 : Click on the "Common Instrument Interface (CII)" link of the EVI-5 Library and it transfers to the Common Instrument Interface Website. Click on the "CII Hosted Payload Opportunity Online Database" link to access the database. All CII Reference Documents are available under the "Information Center" link of this CII Website. Posted 05/08/2018
Q4 :   Can a 6U CubeSat be proposed in another configuration other than (2x1x3)?
A4 : The 6U (2x1x3) is the only 6U configuration described in the NASA Launch Services Program, Program Level Dispenser and CubeSat Requirements Document. The EVI-5 PEA of the SALMON-3 AO states that concepts that do not comply with the NASA Launch Services Program, Program Level Dispenser and CubeSat Requirements Document standards are required to clearly describe how their designs are packaged and deployed and that CubeSat form factors larger than 6U will not be considered. Posted 05/08/2018
Q5 :   The Draft EVI-5 PEA of the SALMON-3 AO states ". an electronic version of the proposal, in PDF format, with the ITAR export-controlled material redacted but otherwise identical to the full unredacted version, shall be included on the proposal CD-ROM". Will the Technical, Management and Cost (TMC) Panel evaluate the original proposal or the proposal with the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) export-controlled material redacted?
A5 : The TMC panel will evaluate the original proposal. All TMC evaluators will be U.S. Citizens. Posted 05/08/2018
Q6 :   Will all hosting opportunities only be as secondary payloads? Or if the science is deemed critical, would NASA consider providing a separate spacecraft specifically for that instrument?
A6 : It is possible. However, the Draft EVI-5 PEA of the SALMON-3 AO states "The objective of this PEA is the selection of one or more Instrument Investigations where one or more instruments are built and deployed on an existing or planned spacecraft" and "To take advantage of excess payload capacity on any of these platforms, NASA is planning to have instruments available for inclusion on these various spacecraft." The Draft EVI-5 PEA of the SALMON-3 AO also states "For an EVI instrument proposal selection, these factors also include the likelihood that the proposed instrument can be accommodated on a NASA-selected platform in the near future." Posted 05/08/2018
Q7 :   If NASA is willing to provide a separate spacecraft for an instrument (see Q 6), would NASA consider providing more than one spacecraft? For example, a constellation of spacecraft larger than 6U CubeSats. Will the cost of these spacecraft or spacecraft constellations be factored into the selection?
A7 : It is possible, however unlikely. The Draft EVI-5 PEA of the SALMON-3 AO states "The objective of this PEA is the selection of one or more Instrument Investigations where one or more instruments are built and deployed on an existing or planned spacecraft" and "To take advantage of excess payload capacity on any of these platforms, NASA is planning to have instruments available for inclusion on these various spacecraft." The Draft EVI-5 PEA of the SALMON-3 AO also states "For an EVI instrument proposal selection, these factors also include the likelihood that the proposed instrument can be accommodated on a NASA-selected platform in the near future." Another selection factor is "available funding and funding profiles" that includes all aspects of the mission, e.g. access to space. Posted 05/08/2018
Q8 :   Will the EVI-5 solicitation allow the submission of a "Classified Appendix Regarding Heritage" with the proposal?
A8 : Yes. Please refer to Section 5.9.4 of the SALMON-3 AO. Posted 05/08/2018
Q9 :   Will ISS be available for EVI-6 or EVM-3 or the first EVC solicitation?
A9 : We cannot respond to questions about EVI-6, EVM-3, or EVC. We can only respond to questions about EVI-5. Posted 05/08/2018
Q10 :   Can I get a copy of the presentation from the April 30, 2018 EVI-5 Prospective Bidders Web Conference?
A10 : The presentation from the EVI-5 Prospective Bidders Web Conference is available for download from the (1) EVI-5 Library under Program Specific Documents and from the (2) EVI-5 Prospective Bidders Teleconference/WebEx page of the EVI-5 Acquisition Homepage. Posted 05/08/2018
Q11 :   Are letters from international collaborations/partnerships placed in an appendix to the proposal, or do they count against the proposal page count?
A11 : Letters for international collaborations/partnerships do not count against the proposal page count. They should be included in Proposal Appendix J. 2. Posted 05/08/2018
Q12 :   Is there a list of available spacecraft that can provide hosted payload options as secondary payloads in LEO or GEO? And if so, how do we access that database?
A12 : The Draft EVI-5 PEA of the SALMON-3 AO states "NASA has been cataloguing the potential platforms that will exist over the next decade with capacity to accommodate potential EVI Instruments. The goal of this activity is to document, as a service to both NASA and all who are interested in potential integration of instruments on available payloads, the types of opportunities that exist and the current interfaces and constraints that exist for each potential platform. It is also desired that, as much as possible, agreements can be reached as to potential common instrument interfaces for many of these potential platforms." To access the CII Hosted Payload Opportunity Online Database and the CII documentation, a link to the Common Instrument Interface (CII) Website is available in the EVI-5 Library. Posted 05/08/2018
Q13 :   We are considering several different instrument concepts that have different launch requirements. Should we prepare (1) multiple proposals; (2) two separate proposals that refer to each other; (3) multiple satellites under the same proposal with the instruments listed as an option; (4) some other alternative?
A13 : You should decide which instrument(s) allow you to address the most compelling science question(s) in a cost effective manner. We do not offer advice helping proposers chose between different science questions or instruments. Posted 05/08/2018
Q14 :   If the instrument intended to be proposed is too large for a 6U CubeSat, then is it not necessary to propose a spacecraft?
A14 :  Correct. The Draft EVI-5 PEA of the SALMON-3 AO solicits Instrument Investigations, where instruments are delivered ready for integration into a spacecraft. The spacecraft could be developed by NASA, other U.S. agencies, foreign space agencies, or commercial vendors. NASA will cover (outside the PIMMC) the cost of access to space (e.g. spacecraft, launch services), integration to the NASA selected platform (Phase D); and investigation costs during any potential gap between the delivery of the completed instrument (end of Phase C) and the start of integration of the instrument to the designated spacecraft (start of Phase D). Nevertheless, the EVI-5 PEA of the SALMON-3 AO also states “Proposals may include information on any research the proposing team has done relative to potential payload accommodations for their proposed instrument. This is not a requirement for any proposal.”. Posted 05/14/2018
Q15 :   Would NASA be open to discussing using NASA tools and services, contributed from other sources, for the Communications Plan?
A15 :  A Communication Program may be required after selection (with costs outside the PIMMC Cap). If a Communication Program is required, NASA will be open to discussions on how to best implement it. Posted 05/14/2018
Q16 :   Section 4.4 of the Draft EVI-5 PEA requires a plan and budget for the Applications Dimension of the investigation. This is new for the EVI series. What are the minimum expectations on this requirement?
A16 :  The proposing team should decide how to best address the Applications Dimension of the investigation. NASA is not expecting a “minimum” effort as the Earth Venture Program is intended to provide data and information products, to the extent possible, to key Applications Communities to increase the overall value and benefits of a mission. NASA recognizes that, in some science investigations, applications are not possible. In such cases, the proposer shall explain and justify why there is no viable application dimension to the investigation. Posted 05/14/2018
Q17 :   Is it possible that NASA would reconsider allowing for integrated instrument/spacecraft pairings that fit within the PIMMC?
A17 : Soliciting instrument/spacecraft pairings is not within the intent of the EVI-5 Program Element. NASA is not planning on reconsidering this option for EVI-5. Posted 05/17/2018
Q18 :   There are a few instruments that have been developed under NASA instrument development programs that are ready to advance the Technology Readiness Levels (TRL) to flight, however demonstrating their performance and science requires a constellation. How are constellation instruments supposed to bridge the TRL gap to flight?
A18 : The EVI-5 Program Element solicits science investigations and not technology development projects Posted 05/17/2018
Q19 :   Various upcoming NASA launches are planned to include an Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) Secondary Payload Adapter (ESPA) ring to fly missions as secondary payloads. Would NASA consider accommodating an EVI-5 instrument in a mission flying as secondary payload in an ESPA ring?
A19 : Yes. NASA will consider accommodating an EVI-5 instrument on a mission for which it would fly as secondary payload on an ESPA ring, assuming that the mission fulfills the EVI-5 investigation accommodation requirements (e.g. orbit). Posted 05/17/2018
Q20 :   Is the proposal's Heritage Appendix utilized by the TMC Panel, the Science Panel, or both?
A20 : Both the Science and the TMC Panels have access to the proposal's Heritage Appendix to generate findings. Science Panel members who are not subject to export control restrictions will have access to the unredacted version of the Heritage Appendix to develop findings, particularly those associated with Factor B-2 (see Section 7.2.3 of the SALMON-3 AO). Posted 05/17/2018
Q21 :   Section 1.3 of the Draft EVI-5 PEA states that "Instrument Investigations must encompass the provision of a flight qualified spaceflight instrument or instrument package ready for integration. ". May an instrument package be comprised of multiple instruments for operation on different spacecraft in a coordinated way?
A21 : Yes. Investigation Teams may propose any instrument package that is necessary to accomplish the proposed science as long as it fulfills the requirements stated in the EVI-5 PEA (e.g., cost and schedule) and those applicable from the SALMON-3 AO. Posted 05/21/2018
Q22 :   The Directive on Project Applications Program Tailored for Earth Venture (EV) Projects contains a number of specific activities to be carried out during the project life cycle. Which elements of this directive need be included in the proposal? Where in the proposal should this text and budget be included and in which Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) should they be budgeted?
A22 : Investigation Teams should propose the applications that best suits their investigation. This text should be included where it best fits the proposed investigation and included in most appropriate WBS for the particular investigation. Posted 05/21/2018
Q23 :   Referring to Tables 2 and 3 of the Draft EVI-5 PEA, is the Communications Program optional or is working with Earth System Science Pathfinder Program Office on the Communications Program optional?
A23 : Both.Posted 05/21/2018
Q24 :   The Draft EVI-5 PEA of the SALMON-3 AO enumerates various key activities for the Science Enhancement Option (SEO). Would NASA partially select a subset of proposed SEO key activities?
A24 : NASA reserves the right to select and fund, partially select and fund, or not select the SEO of a selected investigation. Posted 05/21/2018
Q25 :   Given the answer of Q7, will the evaluation criteria be different for investigations proposing more than one instrument where NASA would need to provide more than one spacecraft?
A25 : No. All compliant EVI-5 proposals will be evaluated according the criteria stated in Section 6.1 of the Draft EVI-5 PEA and Section 7.2 of the SALMON-3 AO. Please also note that the Selection Official may take into account a wide range of programmatic factors in deciding whether or not to select any proposals and in selecting among selectable proposals, including, but not limited to, planning and policy considerations, available funding and funding profiles, programmatic merit and risk of any proposed partnerships, and maintaining a programmatic balance. These factors also include the likelihood that the proposed instrument(s) can be accommodated on a NASA-selected platform(s). Posted 05/21/2018
Q26 :   Can a 6U CubeSat in the 1x1x6 configuration be proposed for the EVI-5 solicitation?
A26 : Yes. A 6U in the 1x1x6 configuration can be proposed, however deployment is only available from the International Space Station. The orbital location of the ISS is approximately 400 km at 51.6 degrees inclination. The orbital lifetime would be less than 3 years, however it can vary significantly depending on the CubeSat's mass and surface area. If a more specific lifetime estimate is needed, NASA provides the Debris Assessment Software (DAS) as a conservative, easy-to-use tool. If this approach is used in a proposal, the investigators do not need to describe the details of how their designs are to be packaged and deployed. New language to reflect this answer will be included in the final EVI-5 PEA of the SALMON-3 AO. Posted 05/21/2018
Q27 :   Do the funding for the potential gap between the delivery of the completed instrument or CubeSat and the start of integration include minimally supporting the key personnel to maintain the integrity of the investigation?
A27 : Yes. The gap plan is intended for only instrument maintenance activities such as storage and periodic monitoring and the necessary support of key personnel to maintain the integrity of the investigation. New language to reflect this answer will be included in the final EVI-5 PEA of the SALMON-3 AO. Posted 05/21/2018
Q28 :   Given the answer to Q 26, can multiple 1x1x6 CubeSats be deployed from the ISS?
A28 : For ISS deployments, eight 1x1x6 CubeSats could be configured for deployment in the NanoRack CubeSat Deployer (NRSCD) per single airlock cycle, but each deploy of a single 1x1x6 CubeSat must be separated by at least 3 hours per ISS Flight Rules. They are frequently separated by more than 3 hours due to other crew activities. In addition, six 1x1x6 CubeSats can be deployed directly from the Cygnus cargo vehicle after it departs the ISS. It raises altitude about 50-100km above ISS (450-500km, 51.6 deg) and deploys from an external NRCSD dispenser. Posted 05/22/2018
Q29 :   Will the evaluation of key personnel for Tailored Class D Instrument and CubeSat Investigations be different than for Class C instrument investigations?
A29 : Yes. As an amendment to the evaluation criteria given in Section 7.2 of the SALMON-3 AO, the evaluation of the Experiment Science Implementation Merit and Feasibility of the Proposed Investigation, includes the following exception to Factor B-5. Factor B-5, probability of investigation team success, is amended with an exception for Tailored Class D instrument and CubeSat investigations that removes evaluation of the PI experience with NASA missions. The panel may provide comments to the Selection Official on the relevant managerial experience of the PI and on whether appropriate mentoring and support tools are in place. Any such comments will not contribute to the Experiment Science Implementation Merit and Feasibility of the Proposed Investigation rating. In addition, as an amendment to the evaluation criteria given in Section 7.2 of the SALMON-3 AO, the evaluation of the TMC Feasibility of the Proposed Investigation Implementation, includes the following exception to Factor C-4. Factor C-4, adequacy and robustness of the management approach and schedule, including the capability of the management team, is amended for Tailored Class D instrument and CubeSat investigations to assess the qualifications and experience of the management team as a whole as opposed to assessing the capabilities of each of the Key Team Members independently. The panel may provide comments to the Selection Official on the relevant managerial experience of the PI and on whether appropriate mentoring and support tools are in place. Any such comments will not contribute to the TMC Feasibility of the Proposed Investigation Implementation risk rating. Posted 06/26/2018
Q30 :   What information on selected and non-selected investigations will be provided in the Selection Statement?
A30 : We will maintain past practice on this for EVI-5 solicitation. If there are any Category I proposals that are not selected, they will be listed in the Selection Statement and the reason that they were not selected will be described. If any Category II are selected, then the other Category II proposals will be listed and the reason that they were not selected will be described. For Category IV proposals, we will only state that all Category IV proposals were not selected for the same reasons they were assigned to Category IV. However, the titles, team members and specific reasons for their non-selection will not be provided. Posted 06/26/2018
Q31 :   What is the size limitation for the CubeSats?
A31 : Section 4.6.2 of the EVI-5 PEA states "CubeSat proposals are recommended to comply with the Cal Poly CubeSat Design Specification, found at http://www.cubesat.org/resources/. NASA's Launch Services Program has issued a Program Level Dispenser and CubeSat Requirements Document (PLDCRD), which can be found in the EVI-5 Library, with standard requirements for launching CubeSats with form factors up to 6U and qualifying form factors of 1U, 1.5U, 2U, 3U and 6U. Furthermore, NASA can also accommodate the deployment of a 6U CubeSat in a 1x1x6 configuration from the International Space Station. Concepts that do not comply with the above standards are required to clearly describe how their designs are packaged and deployed, but with the understanding that CubeSat form factors larger than 6U will not be considered. Note that the 6U limit is for a single CubeSat. CubeSat constellations are permitted but each individual CubeSat in the constellation cannot be greater than 6U. Proposers should be cognizant that a successful CubeSat constellation based investigation is required to be proposed within the PI-Managed Mission Cost (PIMMC) cap and must also pass through an accommodation study whereby NASA evaluates its capacity to launch such a constellation." Posted 07/27/2018
Q32 :   What platforms will NASA be considering using?
A32 : In the EVI-5 Library (https://essp.larc.nasa.gov/EVI-5/evi-5_library.html) under Program Specific Documents, item 13 - a LSP Small Payload Access to Space Catalogue page and item 2 - Common Instrument Interface (CII) link provide information on the potential platforms. However, NASA reserves the right to find other ways to provide access to space for selected investigations. Posted 07/27/2018
Q33 :   On the Combined Synopsis/Solicitation posted to FBO under solicitation number NNH17ZDA004OEVI5. Is there is an incumbent contractor currently performing these services or is this is a new requirement?
A33 : The EVI-5 solicitation is a unique opportunity announced through a Program Element Appendix (PEA) of the Third Stand Alone Missions of Opportunity Notice (SALMON-3), therefore there is no incumbent. Posted 07/27/2018
Q34 :   Are there specific evaluation criterion for an Education Program Plan?
A34 :Section 4.7 of the EVI-5 PEA K states "An Education Program Plan is not required for EVI-5."  Posted 07/31/2018
Q35 :   Are graduate and undergraduate students permitted to be involved in investigations?
A35 :Yes. Students are often involved in the science team effort for these types of investigations. NASA welcomes student involvement. Posted 07/31/2018
Q36 :   For a Tailored Class D investigation, particularly for CubeSats, what is the typical PI-Managed Mission Cost (PIMMC)?
A36 :The PIMMC cap for EVI-5 Tailored Class D missions is $35M with an up to $5M additional for a Science Enhancement Option as stated in the EVI-5 PEA K. Investigation teams must propose the PIMMC needed to complete their investigation as proposed. The TMC Panel will evaluate against the proposed PIMMC and not the PIMMC cap. Posted 07/31/2018
Q37 :   Is there any prejudice for a proposed investigation with a PI-Managed Mission Cost (PIMMC) significantly below the PIMMC cap?
A37 :No. Investigation teams must proposed the PIMMC needed to complete their investigation as proposed. The TMC Panel will evaluate against the proposed PIMMC and not the PIMMC cap. All proposals must comply with the requirements and constraints contained within the EVI-5 PEA K and the SALMON-3 AO. The proposal must be for a complete end to end science investigation. Posted 07/31/2018
Q38 :   If a proposer has a mission concept that needs CubeSats larger than 6U, is there any flexibility in going over 6U limit?
A38 :No. Section 4.6.2 of the EVI-5 PEA K states "CubeSat form factors larger than 6U will not be considered." Posted 07/31/2018
Q39 :   Slide 2 of the EVI-5 Pre-Proposal Web Conference presentation "CubeSats - The Basics" shows dispensers that are capable of up to 24U volume of CubeSats. How is this volume distributed?
A39 :Slide 2 of the EVI-5 Pre-Proposal Web Conference presentation "CubeSats - The Basics" presents an example of eight P-PODS capable carrying a 3U CubeSat each (total of 24Us). Posted 07/31/2018
Q40 :   Is the data production required to be budgeted as part of the PI-Managed Mission Cost (PIMMC)?
A40 :Yes. Sections 4.5.2 and 4.5.3 of the EVI-5 PEA K state "costs that are within the PIMMC include: . operations, product generation, and data analysis during the proposed prime mission lifetime of the investigation" Posted 07/31/2018
Q41 :   Is the data archiving and public distribution required to be budgeted as part of the PI-Managed Mission Cost (PIMMC)?
A41 :No. Section 4.6.6.1 of the EVI-5 PEA K states "The assigned NASA DAAC(s) will be responsible for archival and public distribution of all data collected by the instrument(s) and produced by the investigation's prime measurement phase. Posted 07/31/2018
Q42 :   Does the EVI-5 solicitation allow for CubeSat constellation based investigation proposals?
A42 :Yes. The 6U limit is for a single CubeSat. CubeSat constellations are permitted but each individual CubeSat in the constellation cannot be greater than 6U. Proposers should be cognizant that a successful CubeSat constellation based investigation is required to be proposed within the PI-Managed Mission Cost (PIMMC) cap and must also pass through an accommodation study whereby NASA evaluates its capacity to launch such a constellation. Posted 07/31/2018
Q43 :   Is the Notice of Intent (NOI) to propose required to state whether an investigation is based on Class C or Class D hardware?
A43 :Section 6.1.2 of the SALMON-3 AO and the NSPIRES Webpage request information to the extent that it is known by the NOI due date. Posted 07/31/2018
Q44 :   Can EVI-5 Proposals contain aspects of investigations that have been proposed to other agencies?
A44 :Yes. However if a particular aspect is funded by the other agency, inform the EVI-5 Program Scientist. Posted 07/31/2018
Q45 :   Would the EVI-5 solicitation welcome small companies leading proposal teams in response to EVI solicitations?
A45 :Proposing teams are welcome to proposed the organizational structure that best suits their investigation. Posted 07/31/2018
Q46 :   How does NASA arrange access to space? Is it arranged for orbits defined in the proposal? How flexible should the mission design be?
A46 :For the evaluation, investigation teams are expected to propose the orbit(s) that is best to accomplish the science objectives. For implementation, NASA considers the proposed/preferred orbit(s). NASA will likely offer the preferred orbit and an alternative. When an alternative is offered the impact to the investigation is considered to ensure the science objectives are met. All available access to space opportunities are considered, a study (together with the investigation team) is performed, and alternatives are presented to the NASA Earth Science Division. Ultimately, the access to space that is best for all the stakeholders is chosen. Flexibility in the orbits would facilitate arranging access to space. There is a broad spectrum of access to space opportunities that have been offered to selected EVI investigations to date. Posted 07/31/2018
Q47 :   Is it allowable for the PI to reside at a different institution than the Submitting Organization?
A47 :The solicitation does not require that the PI reside at the Submitting Organization. PIs are expected to propose a management arrangement that best suits their investigation. However, the Principal Investigator (PI) is accountable to NASA for the success of the investigation, with full responsibility for its scientific and technical integrity, and for its execution within committed cost and schedule (Section 5.4.1 of the SALMON-3 AO). Therefore, proposals must demonstrate that the PI has the appropriate authority within the proposed management structure to implement these responsibilities. Posted 08/02/2018
Q48 :   Our company develops enabling technologies. Can we propose to the EVI-5 solicitation?
A48 :The EVI-5 PEA K of the SALMON-3 AO solicits Earth Science investigation and not technology development/demonstration proposals. Nevertheless, your organization can partner with others to provide the enabling technology. In the EVI-5 Acquisition Homepage (https://essp.larc.nasa.gov/EVI-5/evi-5_index.html), there is a link entitled "Teaming Interest" that contains a list of organizations which are interested in teaming with other organizations on SALMON-3 AO proposals. Please note that, this webpage is provided by NASA as a service to the community, i.e., it is a list of those organizations that have asked to be included in this list. Proposing organizations are not required to team with any organization on this list, NASA does not endorse any of these organizations, and NASA does not accept responsibility for their capabilities or actions. Posted 08/02/2018
Q49 :   For Class C instruments, is the EVI-5 solicitation open to instruments with accommodation requirements such as a specific orbit or spacecraft pointing or scanning capability, that NASA would accommodate at low cost to one of several known spacecraft and launch opportunities?
A49 :Yes. Please refer to Sections 2.2 and 4.6.1 in the EVI-5 PEA K of the SALMON-3 AO for more details on this topic.  Posted 08/02/2018
Q50 :   Is it appropriate to provide some level of detail on these potential platforms and launch opportunities in the proposal to assist NASA in evaluating the feasibility of the proposed accommodation requirements?
A50 :Yes, however it is not required. Please refer to Section 4.6.1 in the EVI-5 PEA K of the SALMON-3 AO for more details on this topic.  Posted 08/02/2018
Q51 :   Is it appropriate to include details on potential platforms in the EVI Accommodation Worksheet included in the proposal?
A51 :No. The EVI Accommodation Worksheet requests specific accommodation information and should refer to sections in the proposal where supporting information, such as potential platforms, can be found. We advise proposers to not include information on the worksheet that belongs in the body of the proposal as the proposal could be deemed non-complaint and returned without being evaluated.  Posted 08/02/2018
Q52 :   Regarding the "gap planning" budgets, Section 4.5.2 in the EVI-5 PEA K of the SALMON-3 AO states ".only maintenance activities, such as storage and periodic monitoring and the necessary support of key personnel to maintain the integrity of the investigation can be in this plan." Is it intended that ".necessary support of key personnel." include the science team as necessary to maintain the integrity of the investigation and basic operational readiness with activities such as, periodic science team telecons and annual science team meetings?
A52 :Proposals are expected to include in the gap-filling budget all the activities that the investigation team deems necessary "to maintain the integrity of the investigation" during this period. Posted 08/02/2018
Q53 :   Section 5.2.1 in the EVI-5 PEA K of the SALMON-3 AO states "If a proposer chooses to submit a classified appendix regarding heritage, the requirements on content, format, and length are the same as, but independent from, those for the unclassified appendix regarding heritage included in the proposal... " Does this mean that the unclassified appendix regarding heritage in the proposal can be up to 30 pages and the classified appendix regarding heritage submitted separately can be up to 30 pages as well?
A53 : Yes. Posted 08/21/2018
Q54 :   To what level of detail is it necessary to describe the investigation team in the proposal?
A54 : Proposals must describe thoroughly the investigation team in the proposal. This is necessary for the evaluation and to avoid conflicts of interest when NASA assembles the proposal evaluation teams. Sections 5.4.1 - 5.4.3 and 5.5 and Factors B-5 and C-4 of the SALMON-3 AO; Sections A.2, A.3, E.5, G, and J.1 - J.4 in Appendix B of the SALMON-3 AO; and Requirement K-4 of the EVI-5 PEA are instances where detailed information, requirements or criteria regarding the investigation team are found. It is strongly encouraged that proposers read the PEA and the SALMON-3 AO carefully. Posted 08/23/2018
Q55 :   For EVI-5 Tailored Class D and CubeSat investigations, may the Science Enhancement Option (SEO) activities described in Section 4.5.1 of the SALMON-3 AO EVI-5 PEA K extend into Phase F and beyond?
A55 : Yes. Section 5.2.5 of the SALMON-3 AO states "Activities such as extended missions, guest investigator programs, general observer programs, participating scientist programs, interdisciplinary scientist programs, and/or archival data analysis programs, where appropriate, have the potential to broaden the scientific impact of investigations. These and other optional activities may be proposed as Science-Exploration-Technology Enhancement Options (SEOs)...". Furthermore, the SALMON-3 AO also states that funding requested for SEO activities prior to Phase E should be minimized. Proposed SEO activities are optional and are not included within the cost capped baseline investigation. Posted 08/30/2018
Q56 :   How is CubeSat Launch Initiative (CSLI) involved in the access to space for EVI-5 proposed investigations? Are there any constellation size constraints?
A56 : For EVI-5 investigations, NASA provides the access to space and there is no requirement to include CSLI in the proposal. If a CubeSat proposal is selected, the NASA Earth Science Division (ESD) may decide to use CSLI for access to space. The terms will be negotiated between CSLI and NASA ESD. Investigation teams should propose the constellation size necessary to accomplish the science goals within the available resources, e.g., within the Cost Cap. Posted 08/31/2018