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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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