Notice of Intent to Propose Due: December 12, 2003 

Proposals Due: February 13, 2004 

OMB Approval Number 2700-0085

 

National Aeronautics October 10, 2003 

And Space Administration AO 03-OSS-03 

Announcement of Opportunity 

 New Frontiers Program 2003 

And 

Missions of Opportunity 

 
i 

NEW FRONTIERS PROGRAM AND MISSIONS OF OPPORTUNITY

ANNOUNCEMENT OF OPPORTUNITY

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1.0 Description of Opportunity 

1.1 Introduction 

1.2 Overview of Proposal Evaluation and Selection 

1.3 NASA’s Safety Priority 

2.0 Science 

2.1 Science Objectives 

2.1.1 Overview 

2.1.2 Venus In Situ Explorer 

2.1.3 Lunar South Pole-Aitken Basin Sample Return 

2.1.4 Jupiter Polar Orbiter with Probes 

2.1.5 Comet Surface Sample Return 

2.2 Ancillary Program Goals 

3.0 Program Background

4.0 Proposal Opportunity Period

5.0 Requirements and Constraints 

5.1 General 

5.2 Science 

5.2.1 Scope of Proposed Investigations 

5.2.2 Protocols and Policies for Handling Returned Samples 

5.2.3 Forward and Back Contamination 

5.2.4 Data Rights Policy 

5.2.5 Data Analysis Activities 

5.3 Technical Approach 

5.3.1 Adherence to Accepted Management Processes and Practices 

5.3.2 Use of Radioactive Materials 

5.4 Management 

5.4.1 Single Principal Investigator 

5.4.2 Management Plans and Structure for Flight Investigations 

5.4.3 NASA Program and Project Management 

5.4.4 Risk Management 

5.5 Co-Investigators 

5.6 Education and Public Outreach 

5.7 Advanced Technology 

5.8 Small Disadvantaged Businesses and Minority Institutions 
ii 

5.9 Costs

5.9.1 NASA OSS Cost and Total Mission Cost 

5.9.2 Full Cost Accounting for NASA Facilities and Personnel 

5.9.3 Contributions 

5.10 International Participation 

5.10.1 Overview 

5.10.2 Additional Guidelines Applicable to Foreign Proposals and 

Proposals Including Foreign Participation 

5.10.3 Export Control Guidelines Applicable to Foreign Proposals 

 and Proposals Including Foreign Participation 

5.11 Specific Requirements and Constraints for New Frontiers Mission 

Investigations 

5.11.1 Overview 

5.11.2 Launch Services: Expendable Launch Vehicle Option 

5.11.3 Launch Services: Space Shuttle Free Flyer Option 

5.11.4 Baseline Mission and Performance Floor 

5.11.5 Schedule 

5.11.6 NASA OSS Cost Requirements and Cost Caps 

5.11.7 Total Mission Cost 

5.11.8 Concept Study 

5.11.9 International Participation 

5.12 Specific Requirements and Constraints for Mission of Opportunity 

Investigations 

5.12.1 Overview 

5.12.2 Partner Missions 

5.12.3 Extended Science Missions 

5.12.4 New Science Missions 

5.12.5 Science Data Requirements 

5.12.6 Funding Policies 

5.12.7 NASA OSS Cost Requirements and Cost Cap 

5.12.8 Schedule 

6.0 Proposal Submission Information 

6.1 Preproposal Activities 

6.1.1 New Frontiers Program Library and Acquisition Home Page 

6.1.2 Preproposal Conference 

6.1.3 Notice of Intent to Propose 

6.2 Point of Contact for Further Information 

6.3 Proposal Format 

6.3.1 Structure of Proposal 

6.3.2 Requirement for PI and Authorizing Institutional Signatures 

6.3.3 Number of Copies of Proposal to be Submitted 

6.3.4 Address for Submittal of Proposal

6.4 Special Instructions for Proposals Involving non-U.S. Organizations 
iii 

7.0 Proposal Evaluation, Selection, and Implementation 

7.1 Evaluation and Selection Process 

7.2 Evaluation Criteria

7.2.1 Overview 

7.2.2 Scientific Merit of the Proposed Investigation 

7.2.3 Technical Merit and Feasibility of the Proposed Investigation 

7.2.4 Feasibility of the Proposed Approach for Mission Implementation 

Including Cost Risk 

7.3 Plans for Implementation 

7.3.1 Notification of Selection

7.3.2 Contract Administration and Funding 

7.3.3 Confirmation of Investigations for Implementation 

7.3.4 Confirmation of Investigations for Phases Subsequent to Phase A 

7.4 Opportunity for Debriefing of Nonselected Proposers

8.0 Schedule of Solicitation 

9.0 Conclusion 

APPENDIX A: General Instructions and Provisions 

APPENDIX B: Guidelines for Proposal Preparation 

APPENDIX C: Regulations Governing Procurement of Foreign Goods or Services 

APPENDIX D: New Frontiers Program Library 

APPENDIX E: Certifications 

APPENDIX F: New Frontiers Program Planning Budget Profile 

APPENDIX G: Proposal Checklist 
1 

1.0 Description of Opportunity 

1.1 Introduction 

The Office of Space Science (OSS) of the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA) announces an opportunity to propose for two different types of 

scientific investigations through the New Frontiers Program: New Frontiers Mission 

investigations specifically for the planet Venus, the Earth’s moon, Jupiter, or a comet 

nucleus (see Section 2.1); and Mission of Opportunity investigations. 

New Frontiers Mission investigations are to be completed through space flight missions 

launched on Expendable Launch Vehicles (ELVs) no later than June 30, 2010, in order to 

accomplish science objectives in compliance with those stated in Section 2.1 of this 

Announcement of Opportunity (AO) for a total NASA OSS Cost through mission 

completion not to exceed $700M in Fiscal Year (FY) 2003 dollars (see Sections 5.1 

through 5.11 for a description of both general and specific restrictions). Proposals 

submitted in response to this AO for New Frontiers Mission investigations must be for

complete investigations, defined as a concept study (Phase A), preliminary design (Phase 

B), final design and development of all flight experiment hardware, spacecraft bus, and 

mission operations software and equipment (Phase C), spacecraft Assembly, Test and 

Launch Operations (ATLO) (Phase D), mission operations and data analysis (Phase E), 

and, if applicable, extended mission operations (Phase F). Investigations must include 

analysis and publication of data in the peer reviewed scientific literature, delivery of the 

data to NASA’s Planetary Data System (PDS), and full implementation of an Education 

and Public Outreach (E/PO) program related to the mission. Section 5.11 contains 

information only applicable to Mission investigations. Proposals that describe only 

portions of investigations (such as the provision of an instrument as part of a non-U.S. 

mission) may, if appropriate, be proposed as Mission of Opportunity investigations. 

New Frontiers Mission of Opportunity (MO) investigations are part of non-OSS space 

missions of any size that will be launched no later than December 31, 2008, that require a 

commitment from NASA before December 31, 2005, (see Section 5.12.8), that may be 

accomplished within a cost to NASA OSS of $35M (FY 2003 dollars), and that address 

any of the OSS Solar System Exploration (SSE) science objectives except those of the 

study of Mars, for which there is a separately funded Mars Scout program (see the 

recently completed NASA AO 02-OSS-02). Such MO investigations may involve: (i) 

the provision of flight hardware followed by data analysis, (ii) the development of 

physical models and their application to both the design and interpretation of instrumental 

data in Phases B, C, D, and E, or (iii) only the analysis of science data taken by the 

“parent” mission although, in general, MO investigations are not to be a substitute for a 

Data Analysis program that comes more appropriately after data are placed in the archive. 

In any event, MO investigations are generally conducted on a no-exchange-of-funds basis 

with the organization sponsoring the parent mission. MO investigations may be approved 

through the New Frontiers Program when their perceived value is high and their proposed 

cost to NASA OSS is within the above funding limits. NASA is not required to select an 
2 

MO investigation under this solicitation, but if such an investigation is selected, a reduced 

flight rate of New Frontiers Mission investigations may result. NASA also expects MO 

investigations to meet other New Frontiers program objectives for reducing cost, infusing 

and transferring advanced technology, and enhancing education and the public 

understanding of science. Section 5.12 contains information only applicable to MO 

investigations. 

The MO category can also include proposals for Extended Missions for approved NASA 

SSE missions in Phase E and nearing the end of their Prime Mission or already in an 

approved extended phase. In addition, the MO category can also include proposals for 

Mission Extensions using an existing NASA space asset in Phase E to conduct a new 

science mission under certain several specific circumstances. Sections 5.12.3 and 12.4 

contain information only applicable to these categories of MO investigation. 

New Frontiers investigation teams for either full Mission investigations or for MO 

investigations must be led by a single Principal Investigator (PI) who may come from any 

category of U.S. or non-U.S. organizations, including educational institutions, industry, 

nonprofit institutions, NASA field centers, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) and other 

Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs), and other Government 

agencies. 

Contributions including services from non-OSS U.S. as well as non-U.S. sources are 

welcome, including contributions to the payload, to the spacecraft, and/or to the launch 

services, subject to certain exceptions and limitations detailed in section 5.9.3 below. 

Regardless of the type of investigation offered, proposals to the New Frontiers Program 

will require careful tradeoffs between science and cost to produce investigations with the 

highest possible science value for the cost. Investigations proposed at or near the 

respective cost caps may be selected only if the science is especially compelling since 

NASA is seeking program balance between lower and higher cost investigations that will 

allow a mission launch approximately every 36 months within the New Frontiers 

Program funding profile. All missions must include adequate reserves at every phase of 

the mission lifecycle. In particular, mission investigations must plan to maintain a 

reserve through the end of Phase B of at least 25 percent of all costs though the end of 

Phase D, except the cost of the ELV and any Radioisotope Power Sources (RPS). A cost 

reserve for Phase E must also be included as appropriate. 

A major goal of all of NASA’s space science programs is to enhance the public 

awareness of, and appreciation for, space exploration and to incorporate E/PO activities 

into its science investigations (see Section 5.6 of this AO). Additionally, the New 

Frontiers Program requires proposers to set goals for the participation of Small 

Disadvantaged Businesses (SDBs), Women-Owned Small Businesses (WOSBs), 

Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), and other Minority Educational 

Institutions (MEIs) in proposed procurements (see Section 5.8). Participating Scientist 

Programs (PSPs) and/orData Analysis Programs (DAPs) that involve more members of 
3 

the community in the data analysis and/or mission operation are encouraged, as described 

in Section 5.2.5. 

Proposals for both New Frontiers Mission investigations and MO investigations must 

comply with the requirements and constraints specified in this AO (see also checklist 

provided in Appendix G). Proposals that are judged not to be in compliance will be 

returned to the proposers without further review. 

Many documents that may be useful in the preparation of proposals may be found in the 

New Frontiers Program Library (NFPL) as listed in Appendix D. 

1.2 Overview of Proposal Evaluation and Selection 

Investigations proposed in response to this AO will be evaluated on the basis of their 

scientific and technical merits and feasibility (including cost risk) as evaluated by peer 

review (see Section 7.2 in this AO). In accordance with NASA’s desire to fly missions as 

frequently as possible, the proposed cost to NASA OSS will be used as an important 

criterion at the time of selection to help discriminate between proposals of otherwise 

comparable merits. Additional selection factors will be the investigation’s demonstrated 

commitment to E/PO, to technology infusion/transfer, and to participation of SDBs, 

including WOSBs, HBCUs, and other MEIs. Pending the submission of proposals of 

adequate merit, it is anticipated that up to three New Frontiers Mission investigation 

proposals will be selected for further study as a result of this evaluation. One or more 

MO investigation proposals may also be selected either for study or for immediate 

implementation, although NASA is not required to make such a selection under this 

solicitation. 

Each of the selected mission investigation teams will be funded to perform a Phase A 

Concept Study of up to 7 months at a level up to $1.2M in Real Year (RY$) dollars, 

which must be budgeted in the initial proposal. NASA may select an MO investigation 

for implementation without a Concept Study if it is satisfied with its readiness for 

development and implementation as proposed (see Section 5.12). If a Concept Study is 

deemed necessary for an MO investigation, funding will be determined on a case-by-case 

basis but will not exceed $250K (RY$). At the conclusion of the Concept Studies, 

NASA will conduct rigorous reviews to evaluate the detailed implementation of the 

selected investigations. As a result of this Phase A evaluation, one New Frontiers 

Mission investigation and possibly one or more MO investigations are expected to be 

confirmed for implementation leading to flight, mission operations, data analysis, and 

execution of the approved E/PO program(s). 

1.3 NASA’s Safety Priority 

Safety is the freedom from those conditions that can cause death, injury, and occupational 

illness: damage to or loss of equipment or property, or damage to the environmental. 

NASA’s priority is to protect— 
4 

• The public; 

• Astronauts and pilots: 

• The NASA workforce (including contractor employees working on NASA 

contracts); and 

• High-value equipment or property. 

2.0 Science 

2.1 Science Objectives 

2.1.1 Overview 

Following the recent publication of the Decadal Solar System Exploration Survey, 

administered by the Space Studies Board of the National Research Council, entitled New 

Frontiers in the Solar System: An Integrated Exploration Strategy (hereafter called 

simply the Decadal Survey, and listed in the NFPL, Appendix D of this AO ), the OSS 

identified four of their five medium-class missions for immediate consideration for this 

first opportunity within the New Frontiers Program. These four “strawman” missions are, 

in no order of priority: 

• Venus In Situ Explorer; 

• Jupiter Polar Orbiter with Probes; 

• Lunar South Pole-Aitken Basin Sample Return mission; and 

• Comet Surface Sample Return mission. 

The scientific objectives of each of these missions are outlined below, and “strawman” 

mission concepts for each may be found in the Decadal Survey. However, NASA will 

consider any mission concept for any of these archetype missions that goes to the 

appropriate object and effectively addresses the majority of the science objectives 

identified below for each generic type of mission. 

MO proposals may be for any objective within the purview of the OSS SSE program (see 

The Space Science Enterprise Strategic Plan, referenced in the NFPL), except Mars. 

However, all proposals for a New Frontiers Mission investigation that do not propose 

orbiting and in situ measurements of atmosphere of Jupiter, or surface and atmosphere in 

situ measurements of Venus, or sample returns from the South Pole-Aitken Basin area of 

the Earth’s Moon, or a sample return from a comet nucleus, and that do not address the 

scientific objectives for a mission to each object (or the class of objects as in the case of 

comet missions) as given below will be considered nonresponsive to this AO and will be 

returned without further review. 

2.1.2 Venus In Situ Explorer 

Although the exploration of the surface and lower atmosphere of Venus provides a major 

technical challenge, the scientific rewards are major. Venus is Earth’s sister planet, yet 
5 

its tectonics, volcanism, surface-atmospheric processes, atmospheric dynamics, and 

chemistry are all remarkably different than on Earth, which has resulted in remarkably 

different end states for its surface crust and atmosphere. While returning physical 

samples of its surface and/or atmosphere may not be possible within the New Frontiers 

cost cap, innovative approaches might achieve the majority of the following objectives: 

• Understand the physics and chemistry of Venus’ atmosphere through measurement of 

its composition, especially the abundances of its trace gases, light stable isotopes, and 

noble gas isotopes; 

• Understand the physics and chemistry of Venus’ crust through analysis of near-IR 

descent images from below the clouds to the surface and through measurements of 

elemental abundances and mineralogy from a surface sample; 

• Understand the properties of Venus’ atmosphere down to the surface through 

meteorological measurements and improve our understanding of Venus’ zonal cloudlevel winds through temporal measurements over at least two Earth days; and 

• Understand the weathering environment of the crust of Venus in the context of the 

dynamics of the atmosphere of Venus and the composition and texture of its surface 

materials. 

The strawman mission proposed by the Decadal Survey to accomplish these objectives 

utilized an orbiter and a lander that carried a drill to obtain a core sample, which was then 

returned from the surface to at least Venus’ middle atmosphere for remote analysis. 

However, any mission architecture that achieves the majority of the science objectives 

stated above for a cost within the New Frontiers cost cap will be considered responsive to 

this AO. 

2.1.3 Lunar South Pole-Aitken Basin Sample Return

The surface of the South Pole-Aitken basin, located on the Moon’s far side southern polar 

region, is likely to contain some fraction of the mineralogy of the Moon’s lower crust. 

Samples of these ancient materials that are not biased by nearside impact basin formation 

are highly desirable to further understand the history of Earth’s Moon. Therefore, a 

mission to return a sufficient sample of material from the heretofore-unsampled South 

Pole-Aitken basin terrain, including useful samples from the deep crust of the early 

Moon, should accomplish (following chemical, isotopic, and petrologic analysis of 

returned materials as well as radiometric age dating on Earth) the majority of following 

science objectives: 

• Elucidate the nature of the Moon’s lower crust and mantle by direct 

measurements of its composition and of sample ages; 

• Determine the chronology of basin-forming impacts and constrain the period 

of late, heavy bombardment in the inner solar system, and thus, address 

fundamental questions of inner solar system impact processes and chronology; 

• Characterize a large lunar impact basin through "ground truth" validation of 

global, regional, and local remotely sensed data of the sampled site; 
6 

• Elucidate the sources of thorium and other heat-producing elements in order to 

understand lunar differentiation and thermal evolution; and 

• Determine ages and compositions of far-side basalts to determine how mantle 

source regions on the far side of the Moon differ from regions sampled by 

Apollo and Luna basalts 

The Decadal Survey description of this mission places very high priority on the return of 

useful samples from the deep crust of the early Moon. The strawman mission considered 

by the Decadal Study is a robotic lander with automatic scooping and sieving capability 

to enhance the return of rock fragments and also to provide context to sampled areas. The 

return of at least 1 kg of sampled materials is expected. However, any mission 

architecture that returns a sample assemblage adequate to achieve the majority of the 

science objectives stated above for a cost within the New Frontiers cost cap will be 

considered responsive to this AO. 

2.1.4 Jupiter Polar Orbiter with Probes

NASA’s Galileo mission to Jupiter provided extensive knowledge about its upper 

atmosphere. However, further study of Jupiter is crucial not only to the understanding of 

its origin and nature of the solar system, but also of giant extrasolar planets in general. 

Therefore, this AO solicits proposals for spacecraft investigations that can achieve the 

majority of the following objectives for Jupiter: 

• Understand Jupiter’s gross dynamical and structural properties through determination 

of the mass and size of Jupiter’s core, its gravitational and magnetic fields, and 

internal convection; 

• Measure the Jovian atmospheric composition, particularly, the condensable-gas 

abundances (H20, NH3, CH4 and H2S), the Jovian atmospheric temperature profile, 

wind velocity profile, and cloud opacity to greater depths than achieved by the Galileo 

entry probe with a goal of 100 bar at multiple latitudes; and 

• Investigate and characterize the three dimensional structure of Jupiter’s polar 

magnetosphere. 

The strawman mission considered by the Decadal Study consisted of a highly 

instrumented spacecraft in polar orbit around Jupiter for the main portion of the mission 

and that would deploy three atmospheric probes to make in situ measurements of the 

atmosphere. However, any mission architecture that achieves the majority of the science 

objectives stated above for a cost within the New Frontiers cost cap will be considered 

responsive to this AO. 

2.1.5 Comet Surface Sample Return 

Detailed study of comets promises the possibility of understanding the physical condition 

and constituents of the very early solar system, including the early history of water and 

the biogenic elements and the compounds containing them. Therefore, a mission that 
7 

will sample and return the dust and organics from at least one if not several locations on 

the surface of a comet nucleus, including one in the vicinity of an active vent, is of prime 

interest in order to achieve the majority of the following science objectives: 

• Understand the structure and composition of a comet through measurement of the 

chemical complexity of the sampled material, grain micro texture and its cohesive 

forces, age and composition of ices and organic and silicate grains; 

• Understand the real time dynamics and evolution of a comet’s surface under the 

influence of sunlight by study of the diurnal conditions of its atmosphere and 

surface; and 

• Investigate a comet’s overall physical structure in order to assess its internal 

heterogeneity. 

The first objective requires the analysis of returned samples, the highest priority objective 

of the mission, while the remaining objectives provide context for the environment from 

which the samples are obtained. Of the three objectives the first is clearly the highest 

priority. The strawman mission envisioned is a “touch and go” sampling with storage 

mechanisms for return to Earth, and if the comet has not been previously visited by 

spacecraft, an instrumented platform to characterize the cometary surface. The return to 

Earth of samples might rely on the techniques developed for NASA’s Stardust and 

Genesis missions. However, any mission architecture that returns sufficient sampled 

material (approximately 200-500 cc) in condition to allow the accomplishment of 

majority of the science objectives stated above for a cost within the New Frontiers cost 

cap will be considered responsive to this AO. 

2.2 Ancillary Program Goals 

While the principal objective of the New Frontiers Program is to provide regularly 

scheduled opportunities for high quality, cost effective scientific investigations that fulfill 

the OSS program for Solar System Exploration, there are several ancillary goals that are 

considered of high intrinsic value by NASA for the science community, the U.S. 

aerospace industry, and the nation at large, as follows. 

Ancillary Goal 1: Pursue innovative ways of doing business. 

The development schedule and cost limits associated with New Frontiers suggest and 

encourage innovative teaming arrangements among industry, university, and/or 

Government partners. Competitively selected teams will have the responsibility and 

authority to accomplish the entire mission investigation by utilizing innovative 

approaches to stay within the strict cost and schedule limits of the program. NASA 

oversight and reporting requirements will be limited to those that are essential to assure 

the success of the science investigation in compliance with committed cost, schedule, 

performance, reliability, and safety requirements. 
8 

Ancillary Goal 2: Encourage the use of advanced technologies to achieve program 

objectives and foster their transfer into the private sector. 

The inclusion of new technologies to achieve performance enhancements and to reduce 

total mission cost is encouraged in New Frontiers proposals provided that appropriate risk 

mitigation measures are also included. The use of new technologies will enable more 

aggressive and exciting scientific objectives to be pursued. The teaming of industry, 

university, and Government as noted in Goal 1 above is meant to foster an environment 

conducive to technology development, utilization, and commercialization. 

Ancillary Goal 3: Enhance general public awareness of and appreciation for solar 

system exploration, and support mathematics, science, and technology educational 

reform initiatives at the local, state, and national level. 

Contributing to the improvement of science education and the public understanding of 

science are explicit goals of the New Frontiers Program and of the OSS as a whole. The 

New Frontiers Program is committed to incorporating program elements directed toward 

informing the public and providing educational opportunities that support local, state, 

regional, and national educational objectives and reform efforts. 

3.0 Program Background 

NASA’s budget for FY 2003 includes for the first time the New Frontiers Program that is 

specifically designed to provide a mechanism for identifying and selecting high-quality 

planetary missions that required resources beyond those available in the Discovery 

program. This effort has benefited from the experience surrounding a successful 

competition for a Pluto Kuiper Belt (PKB) mission, which was completed in 2001. The 

mission selected through the PKB competition, New Horizons, is now considered the first 

New Frontiers mission. Like the PKB opportunity, New Frontiers is patterned after 

NASA’s highly successful Discovery program. Unlike the Discovery program, however, 

the choice of destinations and science goals at these destinations for each New Frontiers 

opportunity is limited, and in general will be specified by NASA in cooperation with the 

appropriate science advisory committee. 

The Decadal Survey identified the New Horizons mission as an acceptable 

implementation for their Kuiper Belt/Pluto mission. Accordingly, for this competition for 

the second New Frontiers mission, the Office of Space Science chose as eligible 

candidates the remaining medium-class missions identified in the Decadal survey for 

immediate consideration within the New Frontiers Program. These four “strawman” 

missions are, in no order of priority: 

• Comet Surface Sample Return; 

• Jupiter Polar Orbiter with Probes; 

• Lunar South Pole-Aitken Basin Sample Return; and 

• Venus In Situ Explorer. 
9 

NASA wishes to fully enable and challenge the creativity of the scientific community 

with full and open competition, and strongly encourages novel mission implementation 

strategies not considered by the Decadal Survey. In order to allow such opportunities to 

emerge, proposed investigations for all four of the archetype missions are allowed to 

compete here on an equal footing. This AO differs from other AOs, such as those for the 

periodic Discovery and Mars Scout programs, in both the size of investigation possible 

(larger cost cap, larger launch vehicle, and longer period in Phases C and D), and in the 

option to use RPS. 

4.0 Proposal Opportunity Period 

This AO is for a singular opportunity to propose science investigations in compliance 

with the schedule given in Section 8 below. It is the intent of NASA OSS to release other 

New Frontiers program AOs for future opportunities as allowed by appropriate budget 

allocations. 

5.0 Requirements and Constraints 

5.1 General 

In the New Frontiers Program, the major responsibility for the selected investigation rests 

solely with the PI who, along with the investigation’s Project Manager (PM) and 

investigation team, will have a large degree of freedom to accomplish its proposed 

objectives within the stated constraints with only essential NASA oversight. Once an 

investigation has been confirmed for flight, failure to maintain reasonable progress on the 

agreed upon schedule or failure to operate within the constraints outlined in this section 

may be cause for its termination by NASA. 

 

Every aspect of a New Frontiers investigation must reflect a commitment to mission 

success while keeping total costs as low as possible. Consequently, proposed 

investigations must be designed and scoped to emphasize mission success within cost and 

schedule constraints by incorporating sufficient cost, schedule, and design margins, 

reserves, and resiliency. 

Only those investigations for which the proposed cost, design/development schedule, and 

launch vehicle requirements are within the constraints and guidelines identified herein 

will be considered as candidates for selection. 

New Frontiers investigation teams for either full mission investigations or for MO 

investigations must be led by a single PI who may come from any category of U.S. or 

non-U.S. organizations, including educational institutions, industry, nonprofit institutions, 

NASA Field Centers, JPL and other FFRDCs, and other Government agencies. 
10 

Teaming arrangements among universities, industry, nonprofit institutions, NASA field 

centers, JPL and other FFRDCs, and/or Government agencies (both foreign and domestic) 

are encouraged. Teams are encouraged to utilize industry participation to the fullest 

extent reasonable. 

For investigations selected through this AO for Phase A Concept Studies, specific 

guidance relative to Concept Study preparation is contained in a document entitled 

Guidelines and Criteria for the Phase A Concept Study, located in the NFPL. 

5.2 Science 

5.2.1 Scope of Proposed Investigations 

The New Frontiers Program is intended to perform focused planetary science 

investigations on high-priority targets that conclude with published articles in the peerreviewed archival literature, as well as deposition of appropriately reduced and calibrated 

data in designated data archives. The relationship between the scientific objectives, the 

data to be returned, and the instrument payload to be used in obtaining the desired data 

must be unambiguous and clearly stated. New Frontiers investigation teams will be 

responsible for initial analysis of the data, subsequent delivery of the data to the PDS, the 

publication of scientific findings, implementation of educational programs, and 

communication of results to the public. Information on the PDS, its formats, and its 

requirements are included in the NFPL. 

Options for extended missions (Phase F), if applicable, must be included in proposals to 

this AO. Costs for such options must be included in the estimate of NASA OSS Cost 

(Section 5.9.1). However, selected proposers must understand that inclusion of such 

options in their original proposal does not imply a commitment from NASA to select 

them (see Section II of Appendix A of this AO for a statement concerning partial 

selections). 

5.2.2 Protocols and Policies for Handling Returned Samples 

Any samples of extraterrestrial planetary materials returned by New Frontiers missions 

must be delivered to the NASA Astromaterials Curatorial Facility located at NASA's 

Johnson Space Center (JSC); contact Dr. Carlton Allen, Astromaterials Curator, 

telephone (281) 483-5126, (Email carlton.c.allen@nasa.gov). Costs for the use of this 

facility must be included in the NASA OSS Cost. Investigation teams will be responsible 

for all aspects of the delivery of such materials to this facility, and this facility will be 

given the task of providing for the physical security, inventory accountability, 

environmental preservation, and distribution of the samples in support of scientific 

research programs organized around each mission, including sample processing in 

support of the mission science team. The science team will be allocated no more than 

one-quarter by mass of the returned sample unless a larger fraction has been fully justified 
11 

by the proposed investigation. NASA shall keep the remainder in pristine condition for 

research competitively proposed by the community at large. 

As a proportionate return for investment by foreign participants in a mission that returns 

extraterrestrial materials, a fraction of the total returned sample may be forwarded to the 

national curatorial facility of the contributing country within six months after return to the 

NASA Astromaterials Curatorial Facility. It is expected that the amount of sample so 

transferred will be approximately proportional to the non-U.S. contribution, but in no 

case will be more than one-third of the total sample. The terms and conditions of 

selection of a sample fraction for transmission to the contributing country must be 

specified in the proposal. However, in the event of selection, the final arrangements for 

the transfer of a fraction of the sample to the contributing country must be established 

through an exchange of letters or a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between 

NASA and the contributing foreign participant. 

5.2.3 Forward and Back Contamination 

New Frontiers investigations will also be subject to the established protocols that address 

forward and back contamination with respect to other solar system bodies. In particular, 

it should be noted that the forward contamination of Jupiter’s satellites is of concern, and 

the return of samples from certain target bodies may be subjected to rigorous containment 

and biohazard testing protocols in accordance with NASA planetary protection policy 

(NASA Policy Directive 8020.7E or current revision as listed in the NFPL). Therefore, 

investigators proposing sample return missions must address their plans to comply with 

planetary protection requirements (also see Appendix B, Section J.6 of this AO). For 

additional information, proposers may contact the NASA Planetary Protection Officer, 

Dr. John D. Rummel (telephone (202) 358-0702; E-mail: john.d.rummel@nasa.gov). 

5.2.4 Data Rights Policy 

Data must be made fully public, in a usable form, in a reasonable time (and not to exceed 

six months). New Frontiers teams will be responsible for collecting the scientific, 

engineering, and ancillary information necessary to validate and calibrate the scientific 

data prior to delivery to the PDS. Archival data products shall include low-level (raw) 

data, high-level (processed) data, and derived data products such as maps, ancillary data, 

calibration data (ground and in-flight), documentation, and related software or other tools 

necessary to interpret the data. All data products shall be documented, validated, and 

calibrated in physical units usable by the scientific community at large. 

The time required to complete this process shall be the minimum necessary to provide 

appropriate data to the scientific community and the general public and must be described 

in the proposal. However, a short period for exclusive rights to data may be proposed 

with justification. The proposed period of exclusivity should be the shortest period that is 

consistent with optimizing the science return from the mission and, except under 
12 

exceptional circumstances, may not exceed six months, since any follow-on NASA DAPs 

cannot be initiated until the data have been delivered to the PDS. 

 5.2.5 Data Analysis Activities 

Investigation teams must also include an adequately funded data analysis period, 

independent of PDS archiving activities as part of their proposed Phase E activities. Data 

analysis should be understood to include publication of scientific results of the 

investigation in peer-reviewed journals. 

It is OSS policy to emphasize and encourage the addition of PSPs and DAPs to broaden 

the scientific impact of missions. These programs are usually initiated no earlier than 

Phase E. Historically, OSS has funded DAPs at an annual level of between 1 and 3 

percent of the mission’s Phases C and D development costs. Although OSS will 

independently solicit and administer these programs using competitive peer review, if 

such a program is proposed the costs of implementing it must be included in the 

proposer’s estimate of the NASA OSS Cost (Section 5.9.1). Investigations that include 

adequately funded PSPs and DAPs, where these are appropriate, will receive additional 

consideration at the time of selection. 

 

5.3 Technical Approach 

5.3.1 Adherence to Accepted Management Processes and Practices 

New Frontiers projects must encompass all technical aspects of the investigation from 

Phase B through delivery of the data to the PDS and their analysis during Phase E. The 

document NPG 7120.5B, NASA Program and Project Management Processes and 

Requirements, delineates activities, milestones, and products typically associated with 

Formulation and Implementation of projects and may be used as a reference in defining a 

team’s mission approach. NPG 7120.5B may be found in the NFPL. All missions must 

adhere to NPG 7120.5B in order to receive approval for implementation. While NPG 

7120.5B does not define sub-phases, the OSS has defined “Formulation” as Phases A and 

B, and “Implementation” as Phases C, D, and E. 

While mission teams have the freedom to use their own processes, procedures, and 

methods to meet the requirements of NPG 7120.5B, they must plan to obtain Independent 

Verification and Validation (IV&V) from the NASA IV&V Facility in Fairmont, West 

Virginia, for all flight and ground software. IV&V must be accomplished in accordance 

with NPD 8730.4 (found, with NPG 7120.5B, in the NFPL). The cost of IV&V can be 

significant and must be included in the cost proposal if applicable. The NASA IV&V 

Facility provides an on-line self-assessment process, available at 

http://ivvcriteria.ivv.nasa.gov/, as a starting point for the proposal team to understand the 

risk and specific software development characteristics of their mission. If the selfassessment indicates that some level of IV&V will be needed, it is recommended that 

proposals to this AO include 15 percent of their software costs for IV&V activities. 
13 

Finally, each New Frontiers project shall have a cost-effective mission assurance program 

that is consistent with the ISO 9000 series, American National Standard, Quality 

Management Systems – Requirements, ISO 9001:2000 (see Appendix D). 

5.3.2 Use of Radioactive Materials 

RPSs are permitted for provision of on-board power. If such devices are proposed for a 

selected and confirmed investigation, they will be provided by NASA as Government 

Furnished Equipment (GFE) through the Department of Energy; however, their costs 

must be included in the proposal as described in Sections 5.9.1 of this AO. The technical 

and cost parameters of such available units may be found in Specifications for Space 

Radioisotope Power Systems (RPS) for New Frontiers listed in the NFPL. Other, 

smaller, radioactive sources (e.g., radioisotope heater units and/or instrument sources) are 

also permitted. Use of any such sources will require environmental documentation (see 

Environmental Quality Regulations, 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508, in the NFPL), including 

timely National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation and additional 

approvals for the launch of radioactive materials. 

Use of an RPS will require preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement to satisfy 

the NEPA requirements and a very detailed and rigorous nuclear material launch approval 

process. 

Sufficient resources (cost and schedule) must be budgeted in the proposal to secure these 

units and support the development, submittal, and approval of the necessary NEPA 

process and the Nuclear Safety Launch Approval process. More information may be 

found in the Specifications for Space Radioisotope Power Systems (RPS) for New 

Frontiers documents and the New Frontiers Launch Services Information Summary 

document listed in the NFPL. Questions may be posed to the NASA NEPA Coordinator, 

Kenneth Kumor (telephone: (202) 358-1112; E-mail: kenneth.n.kumor@nasa.gov), or 

Environmental Specialist Ann Clarke (telephone: (202) 358-0007; E-mail: 

ann.clarke@nasa.gov). 

5.4 Management 

5.4.1 Single Principal Investigator 

A single PI must be designated in each proposal and is the central person in charge of 

each New Frontiers investigation, with full responsibility for its scientific integrity and 

for the integrity of all other aspects of the mission including the E/PO program. The PI is 

responsible for assembling a team to propose and implement a New Frontiers 

investigation. The PI is accountable to NASA for the scientific success of the 

investigation and must be prepared to recommend project termination when, in his/her 

judgment, the successful achievement of established minimum science objectives, as 
14 

defined in the proposal as the Performance Floor (see section 5.11.4 in this AO), is not 

likely to be achievable within the committed cost and schedule reserves. 

5.4.2 Management Plans and Structure for Flight Investigations 

NASA intends to give the PI and his/her team the ability to use their own management 

processes, procedures, and methods to the fullest extent possible. Therefore, proposers to 

this AO should define the management approach (compliant with NPG 7120.5B) best 

suited for their particular teaming arrangement commensurate with the investigation’s 

implementation approach, while retaining a simple and effective management structure 

that assures adequate control of development within the cost and schedule constraints. 

The investigation team must develop a Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) that best fits 

its organizational approach and mission design concept (see also Appendix B). 

Each New Frontiers investigation proposal must have a fully qualified and experienced 

PM who will oversee the technical implementation of the project. The role, 

qualifications, and experience of the PM must be adequate to ensure that the technical 

and managerial needs of the investigation will be met. If the PI and his/her team wish to 

obtain project management and end-to-end systems engineering from a NASA field 

center, these functions may be obtained either at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center 

(GSFC) or at NASA JPL as directed by OSS. Teams wishing to explore either possibility 

may contact either Ms. Bonnie G. Norris at NASA GSFC (301-286-5442 email: 

Bonnie.G.Norris@nasa.gov) or Mr. Gregg Vane at JPL (818-354-2851 email: 

gregg.vane@jpl.nasa.gov). 

5.4.3 NASA Program and Project Management 

Program management for New Frontiers will reside within the OSS Solar System 

Exploration Division (SSED) at NASA Headquarters. A New Frontiers Program Director 

and a New Frontiers Program Scientist will be appointed. The New Frontiers Program 

Director will have overall responsibility for program policy, budget, and program 

oversight. The New Frontiers Program Scientist will develop and promulgate the 

periodic AOs for New Frontiers Missions, plan and organize scientific and technical 

review of proposals submitted in response to these AOs, and formulate recommendations 

for selections. The New Frontiers Program Scientist also develops recommendations of 

selected Concept Studies for full implementation and is responsible for strategic planning 

activities as they relate to the New Frontiers Program. 

Owing to the high cost and the greater complexity expected of New Frontiers missions, 

NASA intends to maintain a significant degree of insight into mission development 

through the assignment of a Program Manager in the NASA Management Office (NMO) 

located at JPL who will be responsible for mission implementation oversight; 

coordination of Government-furnished services, equipment, and facilities; and contract 

management of selected New Frontiers investigations. The New Frontiers Program 

Manager will be supported in these duties by contractor personnel (this support is 
15 

currently provided by the Aerospace Corporation) who will need access to project 

information. The New Frontiers Program Manager will report to the New Frontiers 

Program Director. In addition, a Program Executive and a Program Scientist will be 

appointed from SSED personnel for each active New Frontiers investigation. The 

Program Scientist will also be responsible for directly following the development of his 

or her New Frontiers Investigation to insure that the selected science objectives will be 

achieved, and to alert both the SSED Director and the OSS Associate Administrator 

immediately if he or she detects emerging issues. The Program Scientist will work with 

both the NASA Program Management team and the Project Management to fulfill this 

responsibility. 

5.4.4 Risk Management 

Every New Frontiers investigation must define the risk management approach it intends 

to use to ensure successful achievement of the investigation objectives within established 

resource and schedule constraints. Included in this discussion of risk management must 

be risk mitigation plans for new technologies and the need for any long-lead items that 

need to be placed on contract before the start of Phase C to ensure timely delivery of 

flight hardware and software, as well as a discussion of the role of potential descopes in 

risk mitigation. Proposals that include international participation must address the risk 

resulting from any international contributions to the proposed mission (Section 5.10). In 

addition, any manufacturing, test, or other facilities needed to ensure successful 

completion of the proposed investigation must be identified in every New Frontiers 

proposal. 

5.5 Co-Investigators 

A Co-Investigator (Co-I) is defined as an investigator who plays a necessary role in the 

proposed investigation and whose services are either funded by NASA or are contributed 

by his/her employer. If funded by NASA, costs must be accounted for in the NASA OSS 

Cost. If contributed, the costs must be accounted for in the Total Mission Cost and an 

endorsement letter from the proposed Co-Is institution must be provided with the 

proposal. 

The role of each Co-I must be described in the proposal (see Appendix B for additional 

details). Note that the identification of an unjustified number of Co-Is may result in 

downgrading of an investigation and/or the offer of only a partial selection by NASA (see 

Section II of Appendix A). In this regard, proposers might wish to consider proposing a 

PSP (see Section 5.2.5) in place of Co-Is whose only roles would be extensive data 

analyses during Phase E. 

5.6 Education and Public Outreach (E/PO) 

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Vision Statement, 

To improve life here, to extend life to there, and to find life beyond, 
16 

and Mission Statement, 

To understand and protect our home planet, 

To explore the Universe and search for life, and 

To inspire the next generation of explorers 

...as only NASA can, 

provide context for the OSS E/PO Program. As part of the OSS response "...to inspire 

the next generation of Explorers as only NASA can," the OSS is committed to fostering 

the broad involvement of the space science community in E/PO with the goal of 

enhancing the Nation's formal education system and contributing to the broad public 

understanding of science, mathematics, and technology. Progress towards achieving this 

goal has become an important part of the broad justification for the public support of 

space science. OSS's work is also a significant element of the overall NASA education 

program. In response to education now being a core mission of NASA, an enhanced, 

coordinated Agency-level education program is being undertaken through the new NASA 

Office of Education, which constitutes the Agency's sixth enterprise. NASA's E/PO 

objectives and focus areas are given in Table I below. 

In accordance with established OSS policies, E/PO will be an integral element of the New 

Frontiers Program; 1 to 2 percent of the NASA OSS Cost (excluding launch vehicles) 

will be allocated to E/PO. The key documents that establish the basic policies and guide 

all OSS E/PO activities are a strategic plan entitled Partners in Education: A Strategy for 

Integrating Education and Public Outreach Into NASA’s Space Science Programs

(March 1995), an accompanying implementation plan entitled Implementing the Office of 

Space Science (OSS) Education/Public Outreach Strategy (October 1996), the 

Explanatory Guide to the NASA Office of Space Science Education and Public Outreach 

Evaluation Criteria (February 2002) and the recently published evaluation of the OSS 

E/PO Program by the Space Science Advisory Committee entitled Implementing the 

Office of Space Science Education/Public Outreach Strategy: A Critical Evaluation of 

the Six-Year Mark (March 2003). These documents are available through the NFPL, by 

selecting “Education” from the menu on the OSS homepage at 

http://spacescience.nasa.gov/, or by request from Dr. Jeffrey Rosendhal, Office of Space 

Science, Code S, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546-0001 (E-mail at 

jeffrey.d.rosendhal@nasa.gov). As a consequence of the policies adopted by OSS, a 

major, national space science E/PO outreach program is now underway. Information on 

the activities already supported through the OSS E/PO program is available in the OSS 

FY 2000, FY 2001 and FY 2002 Education and Public Outreach Annual Reports, and the 

OSS E/PO Newsletters, all of which are also included in the NFPL. 

Instructions for the E/PO component of the proposal are contained in Appendix B. A 

detailed E/PO implementation plan will be developed by each investigation selected 

through this AO as part of its Phase A Concept Study. As outlined in Section 7.3.3, plans 

for E/PO will play an explicit role in the evaluation of the Concept Studies leading to the 

confirmation of investigation(s) for implementation leading to flight. See the document 
17 

Guidelines and Criteria for the Phase A Concept Study in the NFPL for additional 

information. Also note that significant elements of this AOs goal for involvement of 

SDBs and minority institutions (see Section 5.8) may be met through an appropriately 

planned E/PO program. 

Questions and/or comments and suggestions about the OSS E/PO program are sincerely 

welcomed and may be directed to Dr. Larry P. Cooper, (202) 358-1531, (E-mail at 

larry.p.cooper@nasa.gov). 

Table I. NASA Education and Public Outreach

NASA EDUCATION AND PUBLIC OUTREACH 

 STRATEGIC GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND FOCUS AREAS 

• Mission Statement: To Inspire the Next Generation of Explorers 

Strategic Goal I: Inspire and motivate students to pursue careers in science, 

technology, engineering, and mathematics.

NASA Objectives OSS Focus Areas 

1. Improve student proficiency in science, 

technology, engineering, and mathematics 

by creating a culture of achievement, using 

educational programs, products, and 

services based on NASA’s unique 

missions, discoveries, and innovations.

Provide opportunities for students to work 

directly with NASA space science missions, 

facilities, and data. 

2. Motivate K–16+ students from diverse 

communities to pursue science and math 

courses and, ultimately, college degrees in 

science, technology, engineering, and 

mathematics. 

Provide new opportunities for participation 

in the space science program by an 

increasingly diverse population, including 

opportunities for minorities and minority 

universities to compete for and participate 

in space science missions, research, and 

education programs. 

3. Enhance science, technology, 

engineering, and mathematics instruction 

with unique teaching tools and 

experiences that only NASA can provide, 

that are compelling to educators and 

students. 

Provide high quality educational materials 

and teacher training based on space science 

content and focused on national, state, and 

local curriculum standards 

Provide exhibits, materials, workshops, and 

personnel at national and/or regional 

education and outreach conferences. 

4. Improve higher education capacity to 

provide for NASA’s and the Nation’s 

Provide higher education opportunities 

offered through OSS research awards and 
18 

future science and technology workforce 

requirements.

other NASA research and education 

programs. 

Table I. NASA Education and Public Outreach-Continued 

Strategic Goal II: Engage the public in shaping and sharing the experience of 

exploration and discovery.

NASA Objectives OSS Focus Areas 

1. Improve the capacity of science centers, 

museums, and other institutions, through 

the development of partnerships, to 

translate and deliver engaging NASA 

content. 

(a) Through partnerships with major science 

museums or planetariums, put on display or 

on tour major exhibitions or planetarium 

shows based on space science content. 

(b) Provide materials and technical 

expertise to support the development of 

exhibitions and programs at science 

museums and planetariums. 

(c) Work with national, regional, or local 

community organizations such as libraries or 

girl scouts to develop programs directed 

towards enriching the participants’ 

understanding and involvement in science, 

technology, and mathematics. 

2. Improve science literacy by engaging 

the public in NASA missions and 

discoveries, and their benefits, through 

such avenues as public programming, 

community outreach, mass media, and the 

Internet.

Seek out and capitalize on special events and 

particularly promising opportunities in the 

space science program to bring space 

science to and involve the public in the 

process of scientific discovery. 

5.7 Advanced Technology 

NASA seeks to infuse new technologies into its programs and to strengthen the 

mechanisms by which it transfers such technologies to the private sector, including the 

non-aerospace sector. The means by which NASA's OSS plans to implement new 

technology is described in The Space Science Enterprise Integrated Technology Strategy

(October 1998), which is included in the NFPL. The New Frontiers Program represents 

an opportunity for NASA to develop and test new technologies and applications, as well 

as strengthen existing technology transfer mechanisms, and explore and implement new 

mechanisms and approaches to economic benefit. This is especially true when such 

technology enhances the acquisition of an investigation’s science or reduces the costs for 

the mission. It is important, however, that investigations that depend on new technology 

must have sound development/qualification plans for the new technology and/or adequate 

backup plans defined for use in the event that the planned new technology encounters 

development difficulties that will compromise its readiness for assembly and test of the 

flight hardware. Investigations that depend on new technology will not be penalized for 

risk provided that adequate plans are described to mitigate the risk by providing 
19 

reasonable back-up approaches, or if none exist, by providing for adequate development 

and qualification activities such that the success of the investigation is assured. 

Instructions for the advanced technology component of the proposal are contained in 

Appendix B. A detailed advanced technology infusion and transfer implementation plan 

will be developed by each selected investigation as part of its Phase A Concept Study. As 

outlined in Section 7.3.3, plans for advanced technology will play an explicit role in the 

evaluation of the Concept Studies leading to the confirmation for flight (see the document 

Guidelines and Criteria for the Phase A Concept Study in the NFPL for additional 

information). 

5.8 Small Disadvantaged Businesses and Minority Institutions 

Proposers to this AO are expected to use their best efforts to assist NASA in achieving its 

goal for the participation of SDBs, WOSBs, HBCUs, and other MEIs in NASA 

procurements. Investment in these organizations reflects NASA’s commitment to 

increase the participation of minority concerns in the aerospace community, and it is to be 

viewed as an investment in the nation’s future. Therefore, offerors other than small 

business concerns are advised that contracts resulting from this AO will be required to 

contain a subcontracting plan that includes goals for subcontracting with small, small 

disadvantaged, women-owned, and Historically Underutilized Business (HUB) Zone 

small business concerns; see Appendix A, Section XIII. Note that substantial 

involvement of minority colleges and universities in space science missions and research 

programs is also a key objective of the OSS E/PO program. 

Instructions for the SDB and Minority Institutions component of the proposal are 

contained in Appendix B. See the document Guidelines and Criteria for the Phase A 

Concept Study in the NFPL for additional information. 

5.9 Costs 

5.9.1 NASA OSS Cost and Total Mission Cost 

A major goal of the New Frontiers program is to provide the highest science value for the 

cost. Therefore, the NASA OSS Cost will be one factor in the selection of New Frontiers 

investigations and in the continuing assessment of ongoing New Frontiers investigations. 

All proposals must provide an estimate of the NASA OSS Cost. 

NASA OSS Cost is defined as the funding that NASA OSS would be expected to provide 

to complete the investigation, including the cost of the Phase A Concept Study and all 

costs in Phases B through E, including a reserve through the end of Phase B of at least 25 

percent of all costs though the end of Phase D except the cost of the ELV and any RPS. 

A cost reserve for Phase E should also be included as appropriate. Generally, all costs 

must be included as NASA OSS costs unless specifically excluded. Examples of costs to 

be included in all proposals are: launch services (see Sections 5.11.2 and 5.11.3); RPSs 
20 

(see Section 5.3.2); E/PO activities (see Section 5.6); new technology infusion and 

transfer (see Section 5.7); subcontracting costs (including fees); science Co-Is; all other 

personnel required to conduct the investigation, analyze and publish results, and deliver 

data in archival format to the PDS; insurance; NASA Deep Space Network (DSN), if 

required, and other Deep Space Mission System (DSMS) support, if required (see NASA’s

Mission Operations and Communications Services document in the NFPL); Navigation 

and Ancillary Information Facility (NAIF) services; NASA curatorial support (if required; 

see Section 5.2.2); and all labor (including contractor and Civil Servant). 

In addition, proposals must provide an estimate of Total Mission Cost, defined as the 

NASA OSS Cost plus any additional costs that are contributed or provided in any way 

other than through OSS. The Total Mission Cost will define the total value of the 

Mission or MO investigation and must be included in a required cost table with the 

proposal (see Appendix B). 

Sections 5.11.6 and 5.11.7 of this AO describe additional cost elements and caps on the 

NASA OSS Cost, Total Mission Cost, and major mission element costs for New 

Frontiers Mission investigations. 

Section 5.12.7 describes additional cost elements specific to MO investigations and 

specifies the NASA OSS Cost cap for MO investigations. 

As noted in Section 5.2, costs for Phase F, a PSP, and/or a DAP, if any of these are 

proposed, must be included in the estimate of NASA OSS Cost but will not count against 

the cost caps. 

The specific cost information required for proposals is described in Appendix B. Since 

the provision of cost details is not anticipated until the conclusion of the Phase A Concept 

Study, cost estimates in the proposal may be generated using models or cost estimating 

relationships from analogous missions. However, for selected investigations, the 

proposed cost to NASA OSS shall not increase by more than 20 percent from that in the 

original proposal to that in the Concept Study Final Report, and in any case shall not 

exceed the New Frontiers Program cost constraints (see Appendix F). Experience in 

NASA’s Discovery and Explorer Programs has shown that mission costs tend to grow in 

Phase A and beyond as costs and challenges are better understood; therefore, proposers 

are advised to allow for room for this cost growth, up to the New Frontiers cost cap. And 

New Frontiers mission investigations must show a creditable reserve of at least 25 

percent reserve through the end of Phase B. Since costs and obligation authority may well 

be different, it is incumbent on proposers to define any obligation requirement that 

exceeds planned costs. Proposers should be advised that rephrasing of Phase E funds to 

Phase C/D after confirmation of an approved investigation is not permitted. 
21 

5.9.2 Full Cost Accounting for NASA Facilities and Personnel

Where NASA-provided services are used, NASA Civil Service labor and supporting 

NASA center infrastructure must be costed on a full cost accounting basis. If NASA 

guidance for full cost accounting has not been fully developed by the closing date for 

proposal submission or for completion of the Concept Studies, NASA field centers may 

submit full cost proposals based on the instructions in the NASA Financial Management 

Manual, Section 9091-5, Cost Principles for Reimbursable Agreements (see Appendix 

D). If any NASA costs are to be considered as contributed costs, the contributed item(s) 

must be separately funded by an effort complementary to the proposed investigation and 

the funding sources must be identified. Any non-NASA Federal Government elements of 

proposals must follow their agency cost accounting standards for full cost. If no 

standards are in effect, the proposers must then follow the Managerial Cost Accounting 

Standards for the Federal Government as recommended by the Federal Accounting 

Standards Advisory Board. 

5.9.3 Contributions

Contributions including services from non-OSS U.S. as well as non-U.S. sources are 

welcome. These may include contributions to the payload, to the spacecraft, and/or to the 

launch services, subject to the following exceptions and limitations: (i) non-U.S. launch 

services for payloads containing nuclear power sources of any kind are prohibited; (ii) 

non-U.S. nuclear power sources are prohibited; and in order to insure a preponderance of 

U.S. interest in the mission as well as to insure that missions of roughly comparable 

scope are proposed for purposes of equitable competition, (iii) the sum of contributions of 

any kind to the entirety of the flight hardware for a New Frontiers Mission investigation 

may not exceed one third (1/3) of the estimated total cost in U.S. dollars for that 

hardware. Non-U.S. launch services for payloads that do not contain nuclear power 

sources of any kind are permitted. 

Values for all contributions of property and services shall be established in accordance 

with applicable cost principles. Such contributions may be applied to any part or parts of 

a mission, although it should be noted that a contributed item that is in the critical path of 

mission development may be identified as a risk factor, especially in the case of 

contribution(s) from non-U.S. source(s) (see provisions for international risk management 

is Section 5.10). Such contributions will not be counted against the NASA OSS cost cap, 

but they must be included in the calculation and discussion of the Total Mission Costs 

(Section 5.9.1). A Letter of Endorsement that contains a statement of financial 

commitment from each responsible organization contributing to the investigation must be 

submitted with the proposals, to assure NASA that all contributions will be provided as 

proposed. Any proposal failing to provide Letters of Endorsement from U.S. and non-US 

partners with the submitted proposal will be judged non-compliant, and will be returned. 

The cost of contributed hardware should be estimated as either: (1) the cost associated 

with the development and production of the item if this is the first time the item has been 
22 

developed, and if the mission represents the primary application for which the item was 

developed; or (2) the cost associated with the reproduction and modification of the item 

(i.e., any recurring and mission-unique costs) if this is not a first-time development. If an 

item is being developed primarily for an application other than the one in which it will be 

used in the proposed investigation, then it may be considered as falling into the second 

category (with the estimated cost calculated as that associated with the reproduction and 

modification alone). 

The cost of contributed labor and services should be consistent with rates paid for similar 

work in the proposer's organization. The cost of contributions does not need to include 

funding spent before the start of the investigation (i.e., before initiation of Phase B if 

confirmed for flight). The value of materials and supplies shall be reasonable and shall 

not exceed the fair market value of the property at the time of the contribution. 

5.10 International Participation 

5.10.1 Overview 

NASA uses AOs to solicit research proposals from both U.S. and non-U.S. sources (see 

Procurement Notice 97-34 in the NFPL and also at 

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/procurement/regs/pn97-34.html). Because of NASA's 

policy to conduct research with foreign Entities on a cooperative, no-exchange-of-funds 

basis, NASA does not normally fund foreign research proposals or foreign research 

efforts that are part of U.S. research proposals. Rather, cooperative research efforts are 

normally implemented via international agreements between NASA and the foreign entity 

involved. Thus, foreign proposers, whether as primary proposers or as participants in U.S. 

research efforts, are expected to arrange for financing for their portion of the research. 

Both proposals from non-U. S. Sources and proposals originating within the U. S. which 

include foreign participation must be responsive to NASA FAR Supplement Part 

1852.235-72: “Instructions for Responding to NASA Research Announcements” 

(http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/procurement/regs/nfstoc.htm) also found in the NFPL. 

Because of the importance of conforming to these instructions, they are repeated here. 

5.10.2 Additional Guidelines Applicable to Foreign Proposals and Proposals 

Including Foreign Participation.

NASA welcomes proposals from outside the U.S. However, foreign Entities are generally 

not eligible for funding from NASA. Therefore, unless otherwise noted, proposals from 

foreign entities should not include a cost plan unless the proposal involves collaboration 

with a U.S. institution, in which case a cost plan for only the participation of the U.S. 

entity must be included. Proposals from foreign entities and proposals from U.S. entities 

that include foreign participation must be endorsed by the respective government agency 

or funding/sponsoring institution in the country from which the foreign entity is 

proposing. Such endorsement should indicate that the proposal merits careful 
23 

consideration by NASA, and if the proposal is selected, sufficient funds will be made 

available to undertake the activity as proposed. 

All foreign proposals must be typewritten in English and comply with all other 

submission requirements stated in the NRA. All foreign proposals will undergo the same 

evaluation and selection process as those originating in the U.S. All proposals must be 

received before the established closing date. Those received after the closing date will be 

treated in accordance with Appendix A, section VII, of this AO. Foreign sponsors may, in 

exceptional situations, forward a proposal without endorsement if the endorsement is not 

possible before the announced closing date. In such cases, the NASA sponsoring office 

should be advised when a decision on endorsement can be expected. 

Successful and unsuccessful foreign entities will be contacted directly by the NASA 

sponsoring office. Copies of these letters will be sent to the foreign sponsor. Should a 

foreign proposal or a U.S. proposal with foreign participation be selected, NASA’s Office 

of External Relations will arrange with the foreign sponsor for the proposed participation 

on a no-exchange-of-funds basis, in which NASA and the foreign sponsor will each bear 

the cost of discharging their respective responsibilities. 

Depending on the nature and extent of the proposed cooperation, these arrangements may 

entail: 

(i) An exchange of letters between NASA and the foreign sponsor; or 

(ii) A formal Agency-to-Agency Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). 

5.10.3 Export Control Guidelines Applicable to Foreign Proposals and 

Proposals Including Foreign Participation.

Foreign proposals and proposals including foreign participation must include a section 

discussing compliance with U.S. export laws and regulations, e.g., 22 CFR Parts 

120-130 and 15 CFR Parts 730-774, as applicable to the circumstances surrounding the 

particular foreign participation. The discussion must describe in detail the proposed 

foreign participation and is to include, but not be limited to, whether or not the foreign 

participation may require the prospective proposer to obtain the prior approval of the 

Department of State or the Department of Commerce via a technical assistance agreement 

or an export license, or whether a license exemption/exception may apply. If prior 

approvals via licenses are necessary, discuss whether the license has been applied for or 

if not, the projected timing of the application and any implications for the schedule. 

Information regarding U.S. export regulations is available at http://www.pmdtc.org and 

http://www.bis.doc.gov. Proposers are advised that under U.S. law and regulations, 

spacecraft and their specifically designed, modified, or configured systems, components, 

and parts are generally considered "Defense Articles" on the United States Munitions List 

and subject to the provisions of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), 22 

CFR Parts 120-130. 
24 

5.11 Specific Requirements and Constraints for New Frontiers Mission 

Investigations 

5.11.1 Overview

New Frontiers Mission Investigation proposals must be for complete, free-flying 

missions. The PI is responsible to NASA not only for the scientific integrity of the 

investigation, but also for the management of the complete mission, including provision 

of the spacecraft, instrument, and ground system. Proposals submitted in response to this 

AO for New Frontiers Mission investigations must be for complete investigations from 

project initiation (Phase A) through mission operations (Phase E), which is to include 

analysis and publication of data in the peer reviewed scientific literature, delivery of the 

data to the PDS, and full implementation of the mission’s E/PO program. 

5.11.2 Launch Services: Expendable Launch Vehicle Option

 

New Frontiers Mission investigations must be launched as primary payloads on ELVs. 

Although NASA will fund launch service costs directly, these costs must be included in 

the proposed NASA OSS cost (see Sections 5.9.1 and 5.11.6) and Total Mission Cost 

(see Section 5.11.7). Detailed information on ELV launch options, including their 

nominal costs, is contained in the New Frontiers Launch Services Information Summary

document listed in the NFPL. 

5.11.3 Launch Services: Space Shuttle Free Flyer Option 

New Frontiers Mission investigations may not be launched on the Space Shuttle. 

5.11.4 Baseline Mission and Performance Floor 

Every New Frontiers Mission investigation must specify a "Baseline" mission and a 

"Performance Floor" Mission defined as follows: The Baseline mission is the mission 

that, if fully implemented, will accomplish the entire set of scientific objectives proposed 

for the investigation. Any alteration that results in a reduction of the mission's ability to 

accomplish the Baseline set of scientific objectives as identified in the proposal will be 

considered a descope of the investigation. The resulting reduced set of achievable 

scientific objectives will be reviewed to ensure that the investigation remains at or above 

the Performance Floor, which is defined as the minimum science return below which the 

investigation will not be considered justified for the proposed cost. The Performance 

Floor must be identified and documented for a proposed New Frontiers Mission 

investigation along with a plan for the prioritized descoping of mission capability from 

the Baseline to the Performance Floor in the event of cost or schedule growth or for risk 

mitigation. The differences between the Baseline Mission and the Performance Floor will 

be assessed to determine the mission's resiliency in the event that development problems 

lead to reductions in scope. In addition, each selected PI will be required to negotiate a 

set of performance metrics during the definition phase for program evaluation, including 
25 

cost, schedule, and others as appropriate. Failure to maintain a level of science return at 

or above the Performance Floor as determined by NASA will be cause for termination of 

the investigation. 

5.11.5 Schedule

The New Frontiers Program is intended to accomplish important scientific investigations 

within a limited span of time. Accordingly, every New Frontiers Mission investigation to 

be selected through this AO is expected to launch no later than June 30, 2010. Proposers 

must specify the desired launch date and indicate any flexibility in their proposals. 

Furthermore, schedules must be such that launch takes place within 47 months from the 

start of the mission design/development phase (Phase C). Since this phase is defined as 

ending 30 days after launch, the maximum permissible length of any New Frontiers 

mission from the beginning of Phase C to the end of Phase D is 48 months. 

Note that the OSS defines the Concept Study as Phase A and defines Phase B as a 

preliminary design phase ending approximately one month after Preliminary Design 

Review (PDR). No constraint is placed on the length of Phase B or Phase E (operations). 

Procurement of long lead materials is permitted during the Phase B timeframe but, if 

proposed, it must be accounted as an Implementation Task (Phases C and D) and, 

therefore, as an Implementation cost. The Implementation Phase long-lead procurement 

overlap with Phase B will not be considered when determining the length of Phases C and 

D. Options for extended missions (Phase F) must be proposed, if appropriate, with the 

understanding that NASA has no commitment to exercise them (see Section 5.2.1). 

5.11.6 NASA OSS Cost Requirements and Cost Caps 

The New Frontiers Program is intended to provide opportunities for planetary 

investigations of medium scope. Accordingly, NASA OSS will cap its funding for New 

Frontiers Mission investigations, including all mission phases and launch services, at 

$700M (FY 2003 dollars). The NASA OSS yearly funding profile available for missions 

selected under this AO is given in Appendix F. 

As noted in Section 5.9.1, NASA will provide for launch services, but the cost of these 

services must be included in the proposal and will count against the cap on the NASA 

OSS Cost. 

NASA will provide for radioisotope power systems and/or heater units as GFE through 

the Department of Energy (see Section 5.3). As with launch services, however, the cost 

of such devices must be included in the proposal and will count against the cap on the 

NASA OSS cost (their capabilities and costs, for proposal purposes, are described in the 

document Specifications for Space Radioisotope Power Systems (RPS) for New Frontiers

in the NFPL). 
26 

The specific cost information required for New Frontiers mission proposals is contained 

in Appendix B. 

5.11.7 Total Mission Cost

The Total Mission Cost is defined as all costs that are necessary to complete an 

investigation, from selection through Phase E or Phase F (if applicable), including NASA 

OSS costs, other NASA costs, non-NASA Civil Servant costs, and contributions from 

U.S. and non-U.S. entities. In general, proposers should assume that all costs must be 

included unless they are specifically excluded. Proposers must estimate the Total 

Mission Cost in the proposal as described in Appendix B, Table B-1. 

 

The Total Mission Cost, including contributions, may exceed the cap on total cost to 

NASA OSS ($700M FY2003). However, as noted in Section 5.9.3, the sum of 

contributions of any kind to the entirety of the flight hardware for a New Frontiers 

Mission investigation from non-U.S. sources may not exceed one third (1/3) of the 

estimated total cost in U.S. dollars for that hardware.

5.11.8 Concept Study 

Each New Frontiers investigation selected through this AO will be awarded funding (up 

to $1.2M in RY dollars) to conduct a 7-month Phase A Concept Study, which must be 

budgeted as part of the initial proposal (see the Guidelines and Criteria for the Phase A 

Concept Study available in the NFPL). At the conclusion of the Concept Studies, it is 

anticipated that one investigation will be confirmed to proceed into subsequent mission 

phases (see Section 1.2). NASA will not continue funding for those investigations not 

selected to proceed. 

During the Concept Study, the NASA OSS cost shall not increase by more than 20 

percent from that offered in the original proposal and, in any event, must not exceed the 

cap on total cost to NASA OSS. Thereafter, cost shall not increase from that offered in 

the Concept Study. Each Concept Study must conclude with a commitment from the PI 

for the cost, schedule, and scientific performance of the investigation. If at any time the 

cost, schedule, or scientific performance commitments appear to be in jeopardy, the 

investigation will be subject to cancellation. 

5.11.9 International Participation

Any proposed international participation must be described at the same level of detail as 

that of U.S. partners, to the maximum extent practicable. NASA will seek to validate 

contribution cost, schedule, and management data during evaluation of the proposal and 

in subsequent reviews. Failure to provide such information about proposed contributions, 

or failure to document the commitment of all team partners to those costs and schedules, 

may cause a proposal to be found unacceptable for selection through this AO. 
27 

5.12 Specific Requirements and Constraints for Mission of Opportunity 

Investigations 

5.12.1 Overview

By supporting U.S. participation in MO investigations, NASA seeks to allow the U.S. 

scientific community to conduct a science investigation of interest to OSS as part of 

missions sponsored by non-OSS organizations and/or existing flight hardware for 

missions, which have completed their prime science missions. Such “parent” non-OSS 

missions may be sponsored by non-U.S. governments, other U.S. agencies, NASA 

organizations other than OSS, the military (only if the satellite is not planned for weapons 

testing), or private sector organizations, and all are equally qualified. Mission extensions 

and proposals for new science missions that utilize existing in-flight OSS spacecraft are 

also allowed in this opportunity. The total cost to NASA for a New Frontiers MO 

investigation, including all costs for DSMS support and/or NAIF services, through this 

AO is limited to $35M (FY 2003 dollars). 

New Frontiers MO investigations may take several forms, as detailed in Sections 5.12.2, 

5.12.3, and 5.12.4 below. In all cases, however, a New Frontiers MO investigation must 

address one of the science objectives of the OSS SSED (excluding Mars; see also Section 

5.2 and the NFPL) and must include appropriate provisions for the analysis of data and 

publication of results in the peer-reviewed scientific literature and for the conduct of an 

E/PO program. MO investigations will be evaluated against the criteria described in 

Section 7.2 of this AO. 

Ordinarily, a selected MO investigation will be expected to submit a Concept Study 

report to NASA for detailed review that must conclude with a commitment by the PI for 

the cost, schedule, and scientific performance of the proposed MO investigation. If, at 

any time, this commitment appears to be in jeopardy, the investigation will be subject to 

cancellation regardless of the impact this cancellation might have on its parent mission. 

As with other missions proposed to this AO, NASA funding is subject to cancellation if a 

cost overrun is likely to be charged to NASA for any reason, including one resulting from 

a launch delay caused by a non-OSS mission sponsor. 

 

As noted in Section 1.2, NASA may select an MO investigation for immediate 

implementation (that is, without need for a Concept Study) provided that NASA is 

satisfied with its readiness for development and implementation as proposed. For such a 

selection, an MO proposal must (1) conform to these New Frontiers AO guidelines for an 

MO investigation, and (2) contain a commitment by the PI for the cost, schedule, and 

scientific and technical performance of the investigation with detail equivalent to that 

expected at the end of a Concept Study. The commitment must also be complete for the 

programmatic considerations included in Section 5 (e.g., E/PO). Investigations selected 

in this manner will be subject to the same conditions for cancellation as described in the 

preceding paragraph. 
28 

A technical and programmatic review will be held prior to the start of Phase C. 

Assuming a positive outcome, NASA will confirm the investigation to proceed to 

development. As a condition for confirmation, the organization sponsoring the parent 

mission (for non-OSS missions) must commit to enter into an appropriate agreement with 

NASA that must include provisions for sharing of flight data necessary for the completion 

of the selected MO investigation. 

5.12.2 Partner Missions 

 

Proposals to conduct a science investigation of interest to OSS as part of missions 

sponsored by non-OSS organizations are welcome under this AO as MOs. The “parent” 

non-OSS missions may be sponsored by non-U.S. governments, other U.S. agencies, 

NASA organizations other than OSS, the military (only if the satellite is not planned for 

weapons testing), or private sector organizations, and all are equally qualified. 

New Frontiers MO investigations may take many forms, such as providing a complete 

science instrument, providing hardware components of a science instrument sponsored by 

some organization other than NASA OSS, providing expertise in critical areas of the 

mission, and/or purchasing of OSS-relevant data from the mission.

NASA will evaluate the proposed investigation, but not the sponsor’s entire mission. 

While the investigator is not required to document the entire mission of the sponsor, the 

U.S. investigator must fully document the complete MO investigation in the proposal. 

Note that selection by NASA through this AO does not constitute selection of the 

investigation as part of the parent mission, which necessarily is a decision made by the 

sponsor of that mission. Instead, selection through this AO only indicates the 

commitment by NASA to fund the NASA OSS portion of the proposed investigation 

through the New Frontiers program; funding beyond a limited basic study phase does not 

begin until detailed design of the parent mission itself is underway by its sponsor. If an 

investigation is selected both by NASA and by the mission sponsor, the U.S. MO PI is 

responsible to NASA for the scientific integrity and the management of his/her 

contribution to the mission.

5.12.3 Extended Science Missions 

Approved NASA SSE missions nearing the end of their Prime or Extended Missions may 

propose a mission extension through this AO. The extended science mission being 

proposed must commence no later than December 31, 2005. A proposal for an extended 

science mission must include all costs to NASA for the extension of the mission 

including mission operations, DSN costs, any proposed data analysis, and adequate 

resources for archiving new results. 
29 

5.12.4 New Science Missions 

Under this AO, a mission extension using an existing NASA space asset to conduct a new 

science mission may be proposed as an MO investigation if it meets several specific 

criteria: 

(i) The proposal must make use of a NASA spacecraft or other space asset 

that has completed its prime mission; 

(ii) The proposed mission extension must constitute a new science 

investigation and not be an extension, supplement, redirection, or followup of the spacecraft’s original science mission, or any previously approved 

mission extensions; 

(iii) The new science mission must constitute a science investigation 

addressing the scientific objectives of the SSED (excluding Mars; see 

Appendix III of the NASA 2003 Strategic Plan and other documents in the 

NFPL); 

(iv) The proposal must be solely for mission operations and data analysis. 

New science mission extensions are MOs in the sense that NASA may or may not select 

one or more new science mission extensions, and the cost cap for new science mission 

extensions is the MO investigation cost cap. Non-U.S. participation is allowed in 

proposals for new science mission extensions. 

In addition to meeting other proposal requirements, an MO proposal for a new science 

mission extension must describe how the proposers will transition all aspects of mission 

operations and data analysis from the current spacecraft mission operations team to the 

proposed new science mission extension operations team. It is not required that the 

current mission operations team be a part of the new science mission extension proposal. 

However, in the case where the current mission operations team is not a part of the new 

science mission extension proposal, the proposer must show that operations can be 

transferred to the new science mission extension operations team with acceptable risk, 

and with adequate capture of engineering and operations knowledge and lessons learned. 

All mission operations and data analysis costs must be included in the proposed budget. 

5.12.5 Science Data Requirements 

NASA recognizes that MO investigation teams may justifiably incur data analysis 

responsibilities defined by the policies of the sponsor of the parent mission. 

Nevertheless, NASA expects that the mission sponsor will enter into an agreement with 

NASA to assure that scientific data returned from at least those aspects of the mission in 

which NASA support is involved, if not from the entire mission, as may be appropriate, 

will be made available to the U.S. scientific community in a timely way and deposited in 
30 

the PDS as described in Section 5.2.4. NASA will seek to conclude an agreement with 

the mission sponsor in advance of launch to ensure that this activity will be done. 

In those cases where it is proposed to purchase data or to receive data from the parent 

mission in return for service as a Co-I, the proposal must provide evidence that such data, 

as delivered, will be suitable for successful completion of the proposed investigation. 

These data must also be delivered to the PDS for use by the scientific community at large. 

Such data-buy MO investigations need not specify a performance floor nor provide for a 

PSP. 

5.12.6 Funding Policies 

Selection of an MO investigation may result in a contract, a grant, or a cooperative 

agreement, depending on the nature of the proposal and the institutions involved. Further 

information on grants and cooperative agreements is contained in NASA Handbook NPG 

5800.1D, entitled Grants and Cooperative Agreements Handbook, available in the NFPL. 

As a matter of NASA policy, its sponsorship of an MO investigation is always conducted 

on a no-exchange-of-funds basis with a non-U.S. mission sponsor, although depending on 

circumstances, NASA may agree to pay for some level of the integration costs for NASA 

sponsored experiment hardware. Under no circumstances will NASA pay for non-U.S. 

launch costs. 

For an MO investigation on a U.S. commercial mission or on a U.S. Government mission 

not sponsored by OSS, the PI may receive NASA funding for costs that include 

integration, as well as launch services, and will be responsible for payment of these costs 

through his/her proposed costs. 

5.12.7 NASA OSS Cost Requirements and Cost Cap 

The NASA OSS cost for an MO investigation, including any DSMS support or NAIF 

services, may not exceed $35M (FY 2003 dollars) for all phases of the investigation. 

Specific cost information required for proposals is contained in Appendix B. NASA's 

funding for a selected investigation's Concept Study (if required; see Section 5.12.1) will 

be limited to $250K (RY dollars) and must be budgeted as a part of the initial proposal. 

It is important for proposers to this program to understand that the MO PI assumes all risk 

for delays in implementation of the parent mission and must, therefore, propose 

appropriate reserves for such contingencies. Following the completion of any Concept 

Study, but prior to final selection by the parent mission's sponsoring organization, NASA 

funding for additional work will be limited to $100K (in RY dollars). In any case, NASA 

funding for all studies prior to the initiation of mission’s detailed design (Phase C) will be 

limited to 25 percent of the total NASA commitment for the requested investigation. 
31 

Note that funding for MO investigations must include provisions for the planning and 

implementation of an appropriate E/PO program in accordance with OSS policies and 

guidelines. 

Should a Concept Study be funded for an MO proposal, the NASA OSS cost shall not 

increase by more than 20 percent from that offered in the original proposal to this AO 

and, in any case, must not exceed the NASA OSS cost cap for New Frontiers MO 

investigations. Thereafter, the cost shall not increase from that offered in the proposal 

resulting from the Concept Study. 

5.12.8 Schedule

It is incumbent on the proposing investigator to provide evidence in his/her proposal that 

the sponsoring organization intends to fund the parent mission and that the endorsement 

of NASA for U.S. MO participation is required by the sponsoring organization prior to 

December 31, 2005. The launch date should not be later than December 31, 2008, in 

order to allow NASA’s planning for the future New Frontiers Program to proceed in an 

orderly manner. If a commitment from NASA is not needed by the organization 

sponsoring the parent mission before December 31, 2005, the proposal should be 

submitted in response to a future OSS SSE AO that allows for MO investigations. 

6.0 Proposal Submission Information 

6.1 Preproposal Activities 

6.1.1 New Frontiers Program Library and Acquisition Home Page 

The NFPL contents as listed in Appendix D provide additional background, technical and 

management information, and requirements, including information on the New Frontiers 

Program, SSE science goals, the NASA 2003 Strategic Plan, launch vehicles, DSN 

capabilities, NASA's technology transfer infrastructure, the OSS Integrated Technology 

Strategy, the OSS E/PO Strategy and its implementation, the PDS, and existing NASA 

test and mission operations facilities. In many cases, information provided in these 

reference documents includes examples of those types of data that may assist evaluators 

in better evaluating proposals and, therefore, are in the proposer’s best interests to provide 

in their proposals to the best of their ability. In any case of conflict between this AO and 

these documents, however, the AO takes precedence. All documents in this library may 

be downloaded through the World Wide Web at the URL 

(http://newfrontiers.larc.nasa.gov/newfrontiers/NFPL.html). Hard copies are not 

available and should not be requested. 

A New Frontiers Acquisition Home Page available on the World Wide Web at the URL 

(http://newfrontiers.larc.nasa.gov/newfrontiers/) will provide updates as may occur up to 

the date proposals are due to this AO. This Web site will include information about the 
32 

Preproposal Conference, a list of potential proposers subject to the conditions given in 

Section 6.1.3, responses to frequently asked questions, and a link to the NFPL. 

6.1.2 Preproposal Conference 

A Preproposal Conference will be held on the date shown in Section 8.0 at a hotel in the 

Washington area. All interested parties may attend but may not use NASA funds 

provided through any type of research award to defray the costs of attendance and must 

make their own travel arrangements. The purpose of this conference will be to address 

questions about the proposal process for this AO. Questions should be sent to the New 

Frontiers Program Scientist at the address given in Section 6.2. NASA personnel will 

address all questions received no later than five working days prior to the Conference. 

Questions submitted after this date may be addressed at the Conference as time permits 

and as appropriate answers can be generated. Anonymity of the authors of all questions 

will be preserved. A summary of the New Frontiers AO Preproposal Conference, 

including answers to all questions addressed at the conference, will be posted as part of 

the NFPL (see Section 6.1.1) approximately two weeks after this event. 

6.1.3 Notice of Intent to Propose 

To assist the planning of the proposal evaluation process, NASA encourages the 

submission of a Notice of Intent (NOI) to propose should be submitted by all prospective 

proposers in accordance with the schedule in Section 8.0. Material in an NOI is 

confidential and will be used for NASA planning purposes only. Those submitting an 

NOI will receive any New Frontiers program updates as may occur, up to the time of the 

proposal due date (all updates will also be posted on the Web site of this AO). 

An NOI is submitted electronically by entering the requested information on the site at 

the URL http://proposals.hq.nasa.gov/. Proposers who experience difficulty in using this 

site should contact the Help Desk by E-mail at proposals@hq.nasa.gov for assistance. 

This Web site will request the following information (to the extent that it is known by the 

NOI due date): 

(a) Name, address, telephone number, fax number, E-mail address, and institutional 

affiliation of the PI. 

(b) Full names and institutional affiliations of each known Co-I. If any Co-Is or 

other team members are from non-U.S. institutions, the mechanism by which 

these people expect to be funded should be identified in the comments box on 

the NOI form. 

(c) Type of proposal (New Frontiers Mission investigation or New Frontiers MO 

investigation) and anticipated launch vehicle. 

(d) A brief statement (150 words or less) for each of the following: 
33 

(i) the scientific objectives of the proposed mission; 

(ii) identification of new technologies that may be employed as part of the 

mission; and 

(iii) the E/PO objectives in the proposed investigation. 

(e) The name of the Lead Representative from each organization (industrial, 

academic, nonprofit, and/or Federal) included in the proposing team as may be 

known by the end of the NOI . 

SPECIAL NOTICE: As a result of recent AOs for complete mission investigations 

such as this one, commercial aerospace and technology organizations have requested 

access to the names and addresses of those who submit NOIs in order to facilitate 

informing potential proposers of their services and/or products. Therefore, with the 

permission of the submitters of an NOI to this AO, NASA OSS is willing to make 

this information publicly available with the understanding that the Agency takes no 

responsibility for the subsequent use of such information. The Web site that requests 

NOI information allows proposers to check a box that grants this permission. 

6.2 Point of Contact for Further Information 

Inquiries about this AO and/or the New Frontiers Program may be directed to the New 

Frontiers Program Scientist at the following address: 

Dr. Thomas H. Morgan 

Ref. New Frontiers 2003 

Solar System Exploration Division 

Code SE 

Office of Space Science 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Washington, DC 20546-0001 

 Telephone: (202) 358-0828 

 Fax Number: (202) 358-3097 

 E-mail: thomas.h.morgan@nasa.gov (Note: Subject field should 

 read “NFAO”) 

6.3 Proposal Format 

6.3.1 Structure of Proposal 

General NASA guidance for proposals to this AO is given in Appendix A, which is 

considered binding unless specifically amended in this AO. A uniform proposal format is 

required from all proposers to aid in proposal evaluation, which is summarized in 

Appendix B. Failure to follow this outline may result in reduced ratings during the 

evaluation process and could lead to rejection of the proposal without review. 
34 

6.3.2 Requirement for PI and Authorizing Institutional Signatures 

All proposals must have a Cover Page that includes a Proposal Summary that is to be 

submitted electronically through the designated Web site following the instructions given 

in Appendix B. Once this form is submitted, it must be printed and signed by the PI and 

an official of the PIs institution who is authorized to certify institutional support and 

sponsorship of the investigation, including the management and the financial parts of the 

proposal. Note that the authorizing institutional signature on the printout of the 

electronically submitted Cover Page also certifies that the proposing institution 

understands and complies with the three required certifications printed in Appendix E of 

this AO; therefore, it is not necessary to submit these certifications separately with the 

proposal. 

The proposal must also include a letter of endorsement signed by an institutional official 

from every organization identified as providing no-exchange-of-funds contributions of 

hardware, software, facilities, and/or services (including those of Co-Is), that provides 

evidence that the institution and/or Government officials are aware of the proposed 

investigation, support the proposed investigation, and that sufficient funds will be made 

available to undertake the activity proposed investigation if selected by NASA. 

Signatures of commitment are required for all science team members identified in the 

science section (including the PI and Co-Is) and for all key project personnel named 

elsewhere in the proposal including key individuals associated with the E/PO activities. 

These signatures are to be included at the bottom of the resumes required for each of 

these individuals and/or included on commitment letters from their institutions (see 

Appendix B, Section J.2 and J.3). The original, signed documents are to be included in 

the original copy of the proposal. 

Non-U.S. organizations involved in proposals must submit such endorsements to the 

address given in Section 6.3.4 by the due date given in Section 8.0. 

 

6.3.3 Number of Copies of Proposal to be Submitted 

Seventy (70) copies of each proposal, including the original signed proposal, and 70 

clearly labeled copies of a CD-ROM containing a single, searchable PDF version of the 

proposal, must be delivered to the address given in Section 6.3.4 on or before the 

proposal deadline given in Section 8.0. The CR-ROM copies are not to be submitted 

separately, but each of the 70 paper copies is to have one of the seventy 70 CD-ROMS 

attached to it. 

6.3.4 Address for Submittal of Proposal 
35 

All proposals must be received at the following address by the proposal due date given in 

Section 8.0. 

New Frontiers 2003 AO 

Office of Space Science

NASA Peer Review Services 

Suite 200 

500 E Street, SW 

Washington, DC 20024-2760 

Tel: (202) 479-9030 

NASA will notify the proposers that their proposals have been received. Proposers who 

have not received this confirmation within two weeks after submittal of their proposals 

should contact the New Frontiers Program Scientist at the address given in Section 6.2. 

6.4 Special Instructions for Proposals Involving non-U.S. Organizations 

See Sections 5.9.3 and 8.0 for more information on and additional deadlines for proposals 

involving non-U.S. organizations. 

7.0 Proposal, Evaluation, Selection, and Implementation 

7.1 Evaluation and Selection Process 

All proposals will be screened to determine their compliance to the requirements and 

constraints of this AO (see the Proposal Checklist in Appendix G). Proposals that do not 

comply will be returned to the proposer without further review. Compliant proposals will 

be assessed against the criteria specified in Section 7.2 by panels of individuals who are 

peers of the proposers. Panelists will be instructed to evaluate all proposals 

independently without comparison. These panels may be augmented through the 

solicitation of mail reviews, which the panels have the right to accept in whole or in part, 

or to reject. Proposers should be aware that, during the evaluation and selection process, 

NASA may request clarification of specific points in a proposal; if so, such a request 

from NASA and the proposer’s response shall be in writing. 

An ad hoc subcommittee of the Space Science Steering Committee (SSSC; see further 

below), composed wholly of Civil Servants (some of whom may be from Government 

agencies other than NASA) and appointed by the Associate Administrator for Space 

Science, will convene to consider the peer review results and categorize the proposals in 

accordance with procedures required by NASA FAR Supplement Part 1872.403-1. The 

categories are defined as follows: 

 Category I. Well conceived and scientifically and technically sound investigations 

pertinent to the goals of the program and the AOs objectives, and offered by a 

competent investigator from an institution capable of supplying the necessary 
36 

support to ensure that any essential flight hardware or other support can be 

delivered on time, and that data can be properly reduced, analyzed, interpreted, 

and published in a reasonable time. Investigations in Category I are recommended 

for acceptance and normally will be displaced only by other Category I 

investigations. 

 Category II. Well-conceived and scientifically or technically sound investigations 

that are recommended for acceptance, but at a lower priority than Category I. 

 Category III. Scientifically or technically sound investigations that require further 

development. (Note: in this context, “development” refers to the Technical 

Readiness Level (TRL) of key proposed hardware; see section 7.2.4). 

 Category IV. Proposed investigations which are recommended for rejection for 

the particular opportunity under consideration, whatever the reason. 

The results of the evaluations and categorizations will then be reviewed by a sitting panel 

of the SSSC. The SSSC will conduct an independent assessment of the evaluation and 

categorization processes regarding their compliance to established policies and practices, 

as well as the completeness, self-consistency, and adequacy of all materials related 

thereto. After this review, the final evaluation results will be forwarded to the Associate 

Administrator, who will make the final selection(s). As the Selection Official, the 

Associate Administrator may consult with senior members of the OSS concerning the 

selections. 

Regarding the final selections, proposers should recognize that the Associate 

Administrator is free to use a wide range of planning and policy considerations when 

selecting among top-rated proposals. While the OSS develops and evaluates its program 

strategy in close consultation with the scientific community through a wide variety of 

advisory groups, the OSS program is an evolving activity that ultimately depends upon 

the most current Administration policies and budgets, as well as the scientific priorities 

identified by the scientific community. 

The overriding consideration for the final selection of proposals submitted in response to 

this AO will be to maximize scientific return within the available budget for this program. 

Depending on the availability of proposals of appropriate merit, this objective may be 

achieved by the selection of investigation(s) at the cost ceiling for New Frontiers Mission 

investigations, or lower cost investigation(s) that would allow more rapid release of the 

next New Frontiers AO, or a combination of investigations of various costs, including any 

MO investigations. 

7.2 Evaluation Criteria

7.2.1 Overview 
37 

The criteria below will be used to evaluate proposals as described in Section 7.1. For a 

New Frontiers MO investigation, the proposed investigation is understood to encompass 

only the proposed contribution to the mission and not that of the entire parent mission. 

The evaluation criteria with their approximate percentage weights (the first percentage is 

for New Frontiers Mission investigations and MO investigations with hardware; the 

second is for MO data-buy only investigations), are as follows: 

• The scientific merit of the proposed investigation; 40 / 60 

• The technical merit and feasibility of the proposed investigation; and 30 / 40 

• The feasibility of the proposed approach for mission implementation, including cost 

risk (i.e., realism and reasonableness of cost), and subcontracting plans 30 / 0 

These criteria are defined more fully in the following sections. Evaluation findings for 

each criterion will be documented using narrative text in terms of specific Major and 

Minor Strengths and Weaknesses, as well as an adjectival summary score. 

7.2.2 Scientific Merit of the Proposed Investigation 

The description of the scientific investigation provided in the proposal will be used to 

evaluate its scientific merit. For a New Frontiers mission investigation, the 

investigation’s goals and objectives will be compared with the scientific goals and 

objectives described in Section 2.1. For an MO investigation, the investigation’s goals 

and objectives will be compared with the broad strategic goals of the NASA OSS SSED, 

as defined in the NASA 2003 Strategic Plan, Appendix III (in the NFPL). This 

evaluation will also include consideration of how well the investigation promises 

fundamental progress in the scientific knowledge of the target, how well the investigation 

may support NASA’s other SSE missions, and whether it provides ancillary benefits to 

NASA’s space science program in general (e.g., through development of critical new 

technologies). For New Frontiers Mission investigations, the scientific value of the 

Performance Floor (see Section 5.11.4) will also be assessed as part of the determination 

of the overall scientific merit of the investigation. This evaluation will result in narrative 

text, as well as an appropriate adjectival rating. 

7.2.3 Technical Merit and Feasibility of the Proposed Investigation 

Each investigation will be evaluated for its technical merit, feasibility, resiliency, and the 

probability of success as expressed in terms of specific major and minor Strengths and 

Weaknesses. Technical merit and feasibility will be evaluated by assessing the degree to 

which the investigation will address the proposed scientific goals and objectives, and the 

degree to which any proposed instruments can provide the necessary data. Considerations 

in the evaluation of the data analysis (i.e., calibration/validation) and archiving plan will 

include an assessment of planning and budget adequacy and evidence of plans for well 
38 

documented, high level products and software usable to the entire science community, 

and consideration of adequate resources for physical interpretation of data and reporting 

scientific results in refereed journals. Consideration of whether the data gathered will be 

sufficient to complete the scientific investigation will be a major factor in this 

assessment, as will the proposed plan for the timely release of the data to the public 

domain for enlarging its science impact. For New Frontiers Mission investigations, 

resiliency will be evaluated by assessing the approach to descoping the Baseline Mission 

to the Performance Floor in the event that development problems force reductions in 

scope. The probability of success will be evaluated by assessing the experience, 

expertise, and organizational structure of the science team and the mission design in light 

of any proposed instruments. The role of each Co-I will also be evaluated for necessary 

contributions to the proposed investigation and the inclusion of Co-Is who do not have a 

well-defined role may be cause for downgrading of the proposal. This evaluation will 

result in narrative text, as well as an appropriate adjectival rating. 

MO investigations that do not include hardware (e.g., data purchase or data exchange for 

services as a Co-I) will be evaluated against all the factors above except that the nonNASA provided flight instrument design(s) will not be evaluated for its (their) ability to 

provide the necessary data. However, such proposals will be evaluated for the evidence 

that such data will be made available by way of signed commitments for their delivery in 

a format and timeframe suitable for the completion of the proposed investigation. It is 

assumed that NASA will not pay for these data unless the data, as delivered, are suitable 

for successful completion of the proposed investigation. In addition, data-buy MO 

investigations need not specify a performance floor, nor provide for a PSP and/or DAP 

(as defined in Section 5.2.5). 

7.2.4 Feasibility of the Proposed Approach for Mission Implementation Including Cost 

Risk 

The technical and management approaches of all submitted investigations will be 

evaluated to assess the likelihood that they can be implemented as proposed, including an 

assessment of the risk of their completion within the proposed costs. The evaluation will 

consider implementation factors such as the proposed launch vehicle including reliability, 

overall mission design (i.e., “mission architecture”), spacecraft design and design 

margins, use of the DSN, and the proposers' understanding of the processes, products, and 

activities required to accomplish development and integration of all elements (flight 

systems, ground and data systems, etc.). This assessment will also consider the adequacy 

of the proposed organizational structure, the roles and experience of the known partners, 

the management approach, the commitments of partners and contributors, and the team’s 

understanding of the scope of work (covering all elements of the mission, including 

contributions). The relationship of the work to the project schedule, the project element 

interdependencies, and associated schedule margins will also be evaluated. 

Investigations proposing new technology, i.e., technologies having a Technology 

Readiness Level (TRL) less than 7 (see TRL Definitions in NFPL), will be penalized for 

risk if adequate backup plans to ensure success of the mission are not described. The 
39 

proposal must discuss the methods and rationale (cost models, cost estimating 

relationships of analogous missions, etc.) used to develop the estimated cost, and must 

include a discussion of cost risks. Innovative cost effective features, processes, or 

approaches will be considered a strength if proven sound. However, even with innovative 

cost features, proposals that are unable to show an unencumbered reserve at confirmation 

(end of Phase B) of at least 25 percent of all development costs (less ELV and RPS costs) 

are likely to be judged a high cost risk and not selected. This evaluation will result in 

narrative text, as well as an appropriate adjectival rating. 

Proposals must also define the risk management approach the project team intends to use 

to ensure successful achievement of the investigation objectives within established 

resource and schedule constraints. Risk mitigation plans for new technologies, and the 

need for long-lead items that must be placed on contract before the beginning of Phase C 

to ensure timely delivery should be included in this discussion of risk management. 

Additionally, any manufacturing, test, or other facilities needed to ensure successful 

completion of the proposed investigation should be identified in the proposal. 

Proposals must also identify a PM who will oversee the technical and managerial 

implementation of the project. The PM must work closely with the PI in order to ensure 

that the mission meets its objectives within the resources outlined in the proposal. The 

role, qualifications, and experience of the PM must be adequate to ensure that the 

technical and managerial needs of the investigation will be met. If project management 

and end-to-end systems engineering are to be implemented from a NASA field center, 

then these functions must be performed by either JPL or GSFC, as directed by OSS. 

Proposed subcontracting plans and SDB participation targets for New Frontiers 

Investigations will be evaluated. 

The commitment of every partner, U. S. or non-U. S., offering a contribution must be 

documented in letters of endorsement. For proposals offering contributions that are 

critical to the success of the proposed investigation, the evaluated risk will increase if the 

proposals: 1) do not have clear and simple technical and management interfaces in the 

proposed cooperative arrangements, 2) do not provide evidence in the proposal that the 

contribution is within the scientific and technical capability of the partner, and 3) do not 

have the required endorsement on a firm commitment to provide the offered contribution. 

Adequate contingency plans for coping with the failure of a proposed cooperative 

arrangement may help to reduce the evaluated risk. 

Since MO investigations fly on non-OSS missions, factors involving spacecraft and 

launch vehicle capabilities will be considered in the evaluation only as appropriate. MO 

investigations that do not provide hardware (e.g., data buys or exchange for Co-I services) 

will not be evaluated under this criterion. 

For both Mission and MO investigations, technical, management, and cost evaluation will 

include an assessment of proposed planetary protection provisions to avoid potential 
40 

biological contamination (forward and backward) that may be associated with the 

mission. 

7.3 Plans for Implementation 

7.3.1 Notification of Selection 

Following selection, the PIs of the selected investigations will be notified immediately by 

telephone followed by formal written notification, which may include any special 

conditions or terms of the offer of selection (e.g., partial selections, see Section II of 

Appendix A). The formal notification will also include instructions for scheduling a 

debriefing at which any issues noted during the evaluation that may require attention 

during the Phase A Concept Study will be discussed (see Section 7.3.3). In addition, any 

other special instructions for the Concept Study will be communicated. 

7.3.2 Contract Administration and Funding

Unique mission management approaches and organizational arrangements in the selected 

proposals may require different contract administration and funding arrangements. 

Therefore, each PI should specify the proposed teaming arrangement in his/her proposal, 

including any special contracting mechanisms that are considered especially desirable for 

NASA’s award to the team. In this regard, NASA strongly encourages cost-type 

contracts with incentives, particularly where performance incentives are measured based 

on delivery of calibrated/validated science data products. 

It is anticipated that NASA will provide up to $1.2M to each selected New Frontiers 

Mission investigation and up to $250K for each MO investigation (if applicable; see 

Section 5.1) to perform a Phase A Concept Study to be initiated as soon as possible after 

notification. 

7.3.3 Confirmation of Investigations for Implementation

The product of the Phase A studies will be Concept Study reports as specified in the 

document entitled Guidelines and Criteria for the Phase A Concept Study in the NFPL. 

The scientific, technical, management, cost, and other aspects of the Concept Study will 

be assessed according to the criteria contained in this document by a panel composed of 

individuals who are experts in each of the areas to be evaluated. Past performance of the 

partners in the implementation of previous or current space missions, particularly cost 

capped missions such as NASA’s Explorer or Discovery missions, will be one of the 

factors used in assessing cost risk, schedule risk and the risk of failure in technical 

performance. This assessment of the Concept Study will be similar to the proposal 

evaluation, but will consider the additional detailed information provided. However, in 

this case, NASA may request in-person presentations and/or site visits to review the 

Phase A Concept Study with the investigation teams. However, even if innovative cost 

features are included, selected investigations that are unable to show an unencumbered 
41 

reserve at the time of their confirmation for development (i.e., at the end of Phase B) of at 

least 25 percent of all development costs in Phases C and D (excluding the ELV and RPS 

costs) are likely to be judged as having an unacceptably high cost risk and, therefore, not 

confirmed for further development. 

If any change in scientific scope is introduced as a result of the Concept Study, this 

evaluation will include a reexamination of the scientific merit of the investigation. In all 

cases, the total cost to NASA, the technical merit and feasibility of the science 

investigation, and the feasibility of implementing the mission will be evaluated. A 

complete assessment of the technical approach, the management, the Phase B plans, and 

the cost risk will be integrated to evaluate the probability that the implementation 

approach will support the science objectives. In addition, there will be a detailed 

evaluation of plans and provisions for E/PO, new technology, and Small Business and 

Minority Institutions developed as part of the Phase A Concept Study. 

As a result of the evaluation of the Concept Studies, the Associate Administrator for 

Space Science expects to continue one New Frontiers mission investigation to proceed to 

Phase B through the exercise of an option under that team’s existing contract with NASA. 

NASA will not continue funding for investigations that are not selected to proceed; any 

such investigations are free to repropose to future suitable AOs. Any MO investigations 

as may have been selected for Phase A study may or may not be confirmed for 

implementation. 

MOs may or may not have a Phase A or Phase B based on their perceived readiness to 

proceed. 

7.3.4 Confirmation of Investigations for Phases Subsequent to Phase A

At the completion of the Phase B study (i.e., after the PDR) for the selected and 

confirmed investigation, an independent review team, chartered by the Associate 

Administrator for Space Science, will conduct a Confirmation Assessment, the results of 

which will be presented to the Associate Administrator in a formal Confirmation Review 

in compliance with OSS policy application of NPG 7120.5B Approval process. The 

organization designated by NASA to implement the investigation may also choose to 

hold a Confirmation Readiness Review prior to the Confirmation Review. The PI, the 

independent review team Chairperson, and a representative of the implementing 

organization will present results of these reviews to the Associate Administrator for 

Space Science at the Confirmation Review, who will then decide whether or not to 

confirm the mission(s) for implementation (Phases C and D). This decision will be based 

on the project’s readiness to proceed to design and development and programmatic 

considerations such as cost, schedule, the ability to achieve the scientific objectives 

delineated in the proposal, and the completeness of the project’s Level I requirements. 

Missions not confirmed for implementation may be sent back for additional study or may 

be terminated. NASA will not expend additional funds on nonconfirmed and terminated 

missions. Once the Associate Administrator for Space Science has confirmed a mission 
42 

for implementation, no subsequent rephrasing of funds from Phase E into the Earlier 

Phase C/D will be permitted. 

7.4 Opportunity for Debriefing of Nonselected Proposers 

Proposers of investigations that are not selected will be notified in writing and offered 

oral debriefings for themselves and a representative from each of their main partners (if 

any). Such debriefings may be in person at NASA Headquarters or, by telephone if the 

investigation team prefers. In the former case, proposers may not use NASA funds to 

defray travel costs. In either case, a senior representative from the key institution(s) 

involved in a proposal may participate in such debriefings in addition to the proposing PI. 

8.0 Schedule of Solicitation 

The following schedule describes the major milestones for this New Frontiers AO: 

AO release....................................................................................October 10, 2003 

Preproposal Conference ...............................................................November 13, 2003 

Notice of Intent due......................................................................December 12, 2003 

Proposal deadline, 4:30 p.m. ET..................................................February 13, 2004 

Non-U.S. Letter of Endorsement due (with proposal)............. February 13, 2004 

Selections announced (target)..........................................July 30, 2004 

Concept Study due (target)............................................ Selection +7 months 

Confirmation for flight (target)....................................... Selection + 10 months 
43 

9.0 Conclusion 

The New Frontiers Program represents a challenging new way for NASA to accomplish 

important scientific exploration of the Solar System. It provides an opportunity to 

execute science investigations of medium scope at the forefront of planetary science, as 

well as to generate opportunities to enhance education and engage the public in the 

excitement of science discoveries. NASA invites both the U.S. and international science 

communities to submit proposals for New Frontiers Mission investigations and MO 

investigations in response to this Announcement. 

Colleen N. Hartman 

Director 

Solar System Exploration Division 

Edward J. Weiler 

Associate Administrator 

 for Space Science 
A- 1

APPENDIX A

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS AND PROVISIONS

I. INSTRUMENTATION AND/OR GROUND EQUIPMENT

By submitting a proposal, the investigator and institution agree that NASA has the option 

to accept all or part of the offeror's plan to provide the instrumentation or ground support 

equipment required for the investigation, or NASA may furnish or obtain such 

instrumentation or equipment from any other source as determined by the selecting 

official. In addition, NASA reserves the right to require use of Government 

instrumentation or property that subsequently becomes available, with or without 

modification, that meets the investigative objectives. 

NOTICE TO ALL OFFERORS: In the event that a Principal Investigator employed by 

NASA is selected under this Announcement of Opportunity (AO), NASA will award 

prime contracts to non-Government participants, including co-investigators, hardware 

fabricators, and service providers, who are named members of the proposing team, as 

long as the selecting official specifically designates the participant(s) in the selection 

decision. Refer to Section I of Appendix B of this AO for proposal information that the 

selecting official will review in determining whether to incorporate a non-Government 

participant in the selection decision. Each NASA contract with hardware fabricators and 

service providers selected in this manner will be supported by an appropriate justification 

for other than full and open competition, as necessary. 

II. TENTATIVE SELECTIONS, PHASED DEVELOPMENT, PARTIAL 

SELECTIONS, AND PARTICIPATION WITH OTHERS

By submitting a proposal, the investigator and the organization agree that NASA has the 

option to make a tentative selection pending a successful feasibility or definition effort. 

NASA has the option to contract in phases for a proposed experiment, and to discontinue 

the investigative effort at the completion of any phase. NASA may desire to select only a 

portion of the proposed investigation and/or that the individual participates with other 

investigators in a joint investigation. In this case, the investigator will be given the 

opportunity to accept or decline such partial acceptance or participation with other 

investigators prior to a NASA selection. Where participation with other investigators as a 

team is agreed to, one of the team members will normally be designated as its leader or 

contact point. NASA reserves the right not to make an award or cancel this AO at any 

time. 

III. SELECTION WITHOUT DISCUSSION

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award contracts without discussions 

with offerors. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the offeror's best terms from a 
A- 2

cost or price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to 

conduct discussions, if later determined by the Contracting Officer to be necessary. 

IV. NONDOMESTIC PROPOSALS 

The guidelines for proposals originating outside of the United States are the same as those 

for proposals originating within the United States, except that the additional conditions 

described in Section 5.10 shall also apply. 

V. TREATMENT OF PROPOSAL DATA

It is NASA policy to use information contained in proposals and quotations for evaluation 

purposes only. While this policy does not require that the proposal or quotation bear a 

restrictive notice, offerors or quoters should, in order to maximize protection of trade 

secrets or other information that is commercial or financial and confidential or privileged, 

place the following notice on the title page of the proposal or quotation and specify the 

information, subject to the notice by inserting appropriate identification, such as page 

numbers, in the notice. In any event, information (data) contained in proposals and 

quotations will be protected to the extent permitted by law, but NASA assumes no 

liability for use and disclosure of information not made subject to the notice. 

RESTRICTION ON USE AND DISCLOSURE OF 

PROPOSAL AND QUOTATION INFORMATION (DATA) 

The information (data) contained in (insert page numbers or other 

identification) of this proposal or quotation constitutes a trade secret 

and/or information that is commercial or financial and confidential or 

privileged. It is furnished to the Government in confidence with the 

understanding that it will not, without permission of the offeror, be used or 

disclosed for other than evaluation purposes; provided, however, that in 

the event a contract is awarded on the basis of this proposal or quotation, 

the Government shall have the right to use and disclose this information 

(data) to the extent provided in the contract. This restriction does not limit 

the Government's right to use or disclose this information (data), if 

obtained from another source without restriction. 

VI. STATUS OF COST PROPOSALS

The investigator's institution agrees that the cost proposal submitted in response to the 

Announcement is for proposal evaluation and selection purposes, and that, following 

selection and during negotiations leading to a definitive contract, the institution may be 

required to resubmit or execute all certifications and representations required by law and 

regulation. 
A- 3

VII. LATE PROPOSALS

The Government reserves the right to consider proposals or modifications thereof 

received after the date indicated for such purpose, if the selecting official deems it to offer 

NASA a significant technical advantage or cost reduction, as compared with proposals 

previously received. (See NFS 18-15.208.) 

VIII. SOURCE OF SPACE INVESTIGATIONS

Investigators are advised that candidate investigations for space missions can come from 

many sources. These sources include those selected through the AO, those generated by 

NASA in-house research and development, and those derived from contracts and other 

agreements between NASA and external entities. 

 

IX. DISCLOSURE OF PROPOSALS OUTSIDE THE GOVERNMENT

NASA may find it necessary to obtain proposal evaluation assistance outside the 

Government. Where NASA determines it is necessary to disclose a proposal outside the 

Government for evaluation purposes, arrangements will be made with the evaluator for 

appropriate handling of the proposal information. Therefore, by submitting a proposal, 

the investigator and institution agree that NASA may have the proposal evaluated outside 

the Government. If the investigator or institution desires to preclude NASA from using 

an outside evaluation, the investigator or institution should so indicate on the cover. 

However, notice is given that if NASA is precluded from using outside evaluation, it may 

be unable to consider the proposal. 

X. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY

For any NASA contract resulting from this solicitation, the clause at FAR 52.222-26, 

Equal Opportunity, shall apply. 

XI. PATENT RIGHTS

A. For any NASA contract resulting from this solicitation awarded to other than a 

small business firm or nonprofit organization, the clause at NFS 18-52.227-70, 

New Technology, shall apply. Such contractors may, in advance of a contract, 

request waiver of rights as set forth in the provision at NFS 18-52.227-71, 

Requests for Waiver of Rights to Inventions. 

B. For any NASA contract resulting from this solicitation awarded to a small 

business firm or nonprofit organization, the clause at FAR 52.227-11, Patent 

Rights--Retention by the Contractor (Short Form) (as modified by NFS 

18-52.227-11), shall apply. 
A- 4

XII. RIGHTS IN DATA 

 Any contract resulting from this solicitation will contain the Rights in 

 Data - General clause: FAR 52.227-14. 

XIII. SMALL AND SMALL DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING 

A. Offerors are advised that, in keeping with Congressionally mandated goals, NASA 

seeks to place a fair portion of its contract dollars, where feasible, with small, 

small disadvantaged, women-owned small business concerns, and Historically 

Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), and other minority educational 

institutions, as these entities are defined in FAR 52.219-8 and 52.226-2. 

B. Section 8(d) of the Small Business Act requires insertion of the clause at FAR 

52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, in NASA contracts that offer 

subcontracting possibilities, exceed $500,000, and are with organizations other 

than small Business Concerns. Offerors seeking Concept Study Phase contracts 

that meet these criteria must include subcontracting plans as part of their 

proposals for this phase. The subcontracting plans will be evaluated on the 

participation goals and quality and level of work performed by small business 

concerns, HBCUs, and other minority educational institutions. Offerors will also 

be evaluated on proposed participation targets of small business concerns (SDBs) 

in the applicable North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Sub 

sector as determined by the Department of Commerce (see FAR 19.201(b)). 

C. Offerors that are selected for Concept Study Phase contracts will be required to 

submit new subcontracting plans in conjunction with their Concept Study reports. 

These plans will reflect subcontracting opportunities anticipated as part of the 

Implementation Phase contracts. The subcontracting plans and the participation of 

SDBs in the performance of this phase of the contract will be evaluated in the 

manner described in Paragraph B above as part of the process of selected the 

Implementation Phase contractor. 

XIV. WITHDRAWAL OF PROPOSALS 

Proposals may be withdrawn by the proposer at any time before award. Proposers are 

requested to notify NASA if the proposal is funded by another organization or of other 

changed circumstances, which dictate termination of evaluation.
B-1 

 

APPENDIX B 

GUIDELINES FOR PROPOSAL PREPARATION 

The following guidelines apply to the preparation of proposals in response to this 

Announcement of Opportunity (AO). The material presented is a guide for the 

prospective proposer and is not intended to be all encompassing. The proposer must, 

however, provide information relative to those items applicable, as well as other items 

required by the AO. In the event of an apparent conflict between the guidelines in this 

Appendix and those contained within the body of the AO, those within the AO shall take 

precedence. 

GENERAL GUIDELINES 

All documents must be typewritten in English, use metric and standard astronomical 

units, and be clearly legible. Submission of any portion of the proposal material by 

facsimile, electronic media, videotape, or computer disk is not acceptable except as 

requested below, nor may a proposal reference a World Wide Web site for any data or 

material necessary for its completeness or review. In evaluating proposals, NASA will 

only consider the printed material in the submitted proposal. 

The proposal must consist of only one volume, with readily identified sections 

corresponding to Sections D through J in this Appendix. The restrictions on page count 

for the various sections are specified in the table below. If the same information is 

required in more than one section of the proposal (e.g., instrument and/or spacecraft 

design specifications) to support the subject discussion, it may be included by reference to 

the primary section where it exists provided that such reference does not unduly impede 

understanding of the presented material.

 

Seventy CD-ROMs containing a single, searchable PDF file of the proposal must be 

delivered with 70 printed copies (see Section 6.3.3 of this AO). In order to allow for 

recycling of proposals after the review process, all proposals and copies must be 

submitted on plain white paper only (i.e., no cardboard stock or plastic covers, no colored 

paper, etc.). Photographs and color figures are permitted only if printed on recyclable 

white paper. The original, signed copy of the proposal (including signed endorsements) 

must be bound in a manner that makes it easy to disassemble for reproduction should 

NASA need additional copies. Except for the original, two-sided copies are preferred. 

Proposals shall comply with the page limitations noted in the table below, including no 

more than five fold out pages (28 x 43 cm; i.e., 11 x 17 inches), where each fold out page 

counts as one regular sized page. All pages other than fold out pages shall be 8.5 x 11 

inches or A4 European standard. Each side of paper on which text or figures appears is 

counted as a page. 
B-2 

Single- or double-column printing format is acceptable. In complying with the page 

limits, the type font should not be smaller than 12 point (i.e., less than or equal to ~15 

characters per inch), using no less than 1 inch (2.5 cm) margins at the top, and both sides, 

and bottom (note: A4 paper should use 2.5 cm at the top and both sides, and 4 cm at the 

bottom). Figure captions should be in 12-point font, though smaller font is allowed 

within figures and cost tables (however, all figure information must be easily readable 

without optical aid). 

The following table provides page count limits for proposals for New Frontiers Mission 

investigations and Mission of Opportunity investigations except that Mission of 

Opportunity proposals are limited to 25 pages for the description of the Science 

Investigation (Section D) and 15 pages for the description of Mission Implementation, 

including Advanced Development (Section G), Management and Schedule (Section H), 

and Cost and Cost Estimating Methodology (Section I). Note that the completed cost 

table is not counted against the page limit given above. One extra page is allotted for 

description of any optional Participating Scientist Program (PSP), and Data Analysis 

Program (DAP). 

Section Mission 

Investigations 

Page Limit

MO 

Page 

Limit

A. Cover Page and Proposal Summary Printout of 

electronic Web 

submission 

Printo

ut of 

electro

nic 

Web 

submi

ssion 

B. Table of Contents 2 2 

C. Fact Sheet 2 2 

D. Science Investigation 40 25 

E. Plan for Participating Scientist Program and Data Analysis 

Program (optional) 

 2 2 

F. Plan for Education and Public Outreach, New/Advanced 

Technology, and Small Disadvantaged Businesses 

2 2 

G. Mission Implementation including Advanced Development 

H. Management and Schedule 

I. Cost and Cost Estimating Methodology 

 (completed cost table not counted against the page limit) 

35 total 

(plus 5 pages 

if development 

of advanced 

technologies is 

proposed) 

15 
B-3 

J. Appendices: (no others permitted) 

1. Statement(s) of Work (SOW) and Funding Information 

2. Letter(s) of Endorsement (including foreign participants) 

3. Resumes of Key Participants (2 pages each, maximum) 

4. Draft International Participation Plan - Discussion on 

Compliance with U.S. Export Laws and Regulations 

5. Outline of Technical Responsibilities Between U.S. and 

International Partners 

6. Compliance with Planetary Protection Requirements 

7. Compliance with Procurement Regulations by NASA PI 

Proposals 

8. Acronyms and Abbreviations 

9. References 

No page limit, 

but small size 

encouraged 

No 

page 

limit, 

but 

small 

size 

encour

aged 

A. COVER PAGE AND PROPOSAL SUMMARY 

A Cover Page and Proposal Summary, prepared as directed below, must preface the 

proposal. The Principal Investigator (PI) and an official of the proposing organization 

who is authorized to commit the organization’s resources to the proposed investigation 

must sign the Cover Page. This authorizing signature also certifies that the proposing 

institution has read and is in compliance with the three required certifications printed in 

full in Appendix E; therefore, these certifications do not need to be submitted separately. 

The form for the Cover Page and Proposal Summary is found at the WWW Web site 

located at http://proposals.hq.nasa.gov and must be submitted electronically to that same 

site after it is filled out. The full names of the PI and the authorizing official, their 

addresses with zip code, telephone and fax numbers, and electronic mail addresses are 

required on the specified form, as well as the names, institutions, and E-mail addresses of 

all participants, the type of investigation proposed (i.e., Mission or Mission of 

Opportunity), the total NASA OSS Cost, and a 200-word Proposal Summary. A hard 

copy version of this Cover Page/Proposal Summary must be printed in time to acquire 

signatures and include with the original hard copy and all copies of the proposal for 

delivery to the address in Section 6.3.4 according to the schedule provided in Section 8.0, 

both in this AO. Proposers are advised that they must not reformat or correct the printed 

version of this Cover Page as important NASA-required documentation may be lost. 

Note that every person whose name is entered on this from must be registered in its 

database. Each person must do this for himself/herself--the PI cannot do this for his or 

her Co-Is. Therefore, proposers and their team members are strongly advised to visit this 

Web site well in advance to insure that they are properly registered. Proposers who 

experience difficulty in using this site may contact the Help Desk at 

proposals@hq.nasa.gov for assistance. Note that electronic submission of the Cover Page 

does not satisfy the deadline for proposal submission. 
B-4 

It is NASA’s intent to enter the Proposal Summaries of all selected investigations for its 

various programs into a publicly accessible database. Therefore, the Proposal Summary 

should not contain any proprietary or confidential information that the submitter wishes 

to protect from public disclosure; in that regard, see also Section V of Appendix A of this 

AO. 

B. TABLE OF CONTENTS 

The proposal should contain a Table of Contents that includes the topics provided below 

in Sections D through J. 

C. FACT SHEET 

A Fact Sheet that provides a brief summary of the proposed investigation must be 

included in the proposal. The information conveyed on the Fact Sheet should include the 

following: 

• Science objectives (including the importance of the science to the NASA 

science themes); 

• Education and public outreach objectives; 

• Technology development/infusion/transfer objectives; 

• Mission overview (including mission objectives and major mission 

characteristics); 

• Science payload; 

• Key spacecraft characteristics; 

• Anticipated launch vehicle; 

• Deep Space Network (DSN) infrastructure usage; 

• Mission management (including teaming arrangement as known); 

• Anticipated need for curatorial services for returned samples (as appropriate); 

• Schedule of proposed investigation; 

• Statement of any anticipated significant contributions to the investigation and 

an estimate of their value; and 

• The estimated Total Cost to NASA from Table B-1. 

Other relevant information, including figures or drawings, may be included at the 

proposer’s discretion. The Fact Sheet is restricted to two pages (preferably a single, 

double-sided sheet). 

D. SCIENCE INVESTIGATION 

The Science Investigation section should contain the following topics for the proposed 

investigation. 

1. Scientific Goals and Objectives. This section should consist of a discussion of 

the goals and objectives of the investigation; their value to achieving the science 
B-5 

objectives stated in this AO, and their relationships to past, current, and future 

investigations and missions. Provide the history of the need for such an 

investigation, including an overview of the proposed mission. 

The measurements to be taken in the course of the investigation, the data to be 

returned, and the approach that will be taken in analyzing the data to achieve the 

scientific objectives of the investigation must be discussed. This description 

should identify the investigation to be performed, the quality of the data to be 

returned (e.g., resolution, coverage, pointing accuracy, measurement precision, 

etc.), and the quantity of data to be returned (bits, images, etc.). The relationship 

between the data products generated and the scientific objectives must be 

explicitly described, as should the expected results. It is assumed that the above 

information will constitute the Baseline Mission. 

 A single Performance Floor, defined as the minimum acceptable data and 

scientific return, must be defined for the mission investigation, below which it 

would not be worth pursuing. The value of an investigation carried out at the 

level of the Performance Floor must be discussed. A description of the descope 

options available, their phasing, and their effect on meeting the scientific 

objectives of the investigation as it is descoped from the Baseline to the 

Performance Floor must be discussed. 

 

2. Implementation. 

a. Instrumentation. This section must describe the proposed instrumentation and the 

criteria used for its selection. It should identify the individual instruments and 

instrument systems, including their characteristics and requirements, and indicate 

items that are proposed to be developed, as well as any existing instrumentation or 

design/flight heritage. The quality and quantity of data generated by each 

instrument, as they relate to the stated science investigation goals and objectives, 

must be discussed. The flow-down from science investigation goals to 

measurement objectives and instrument performance must be stated clearly and 

supported by quantitative analysis where possible. 

A preliminary description of each instrument design with at least a block diagram 

showing the instrument systems and their interfaces must be included, along with 

a presentation of the estimated performance of the instrument. These performance 

characteristics (which shall be considered as requirements on the flight system) 

must include mass, power, volume, data rate(s), pointing, and pointing accuracy, 

as well as resolution, precision/sensitivity, and calibration requirements. 

b. Mission. The science payload observing profile must be discussed, including all 

mission-relevant parameters, such as orbit and/or surface location, pointing 

requirements, operational time lines (including observing periods, data 

transmission periods and techniques, and time-critical events), etc. The manner in 
B-6 

which the stated investigation objectives and selected instruments drive the 

proposed mission design and operations plan should be apparent from this 

discussion. 

c. Data Analysis and Archiving. The data reduction and analysis activities after the 

data have been delivered to the ground must be discussed, including the method 

and format for data reduction, data validation, and preliminary analysis. The 

process by which data will be prepared for archiving must be discussed, including 

a list of the specific data products to be produced and the individual team 

members responsible for this activity. The plan must include a detailed schedule 

for the earliest possible submission of raw and reduced data to the NASA 

Planetary Data System (PDS) in the proper formats, media, etc. 

d. Science Team. This section must identify every individual that is considered 

necessary for the investigation science team and his or her roles and 

responsibilities. The capabilities and experience of all members of the proposed 

science team must be described (Note: signed resumes of team members must be 

included as attachments to the proposal; see Section J below). The role of each 

Co-Investigator (Co-I) must be explicitly defined and justified, and the funding 

source (NASA or contributed) for the PI and each Co-Investigator noted. If a CoInvestigator’s services are contributed at no cost to the investigation, a letter of 

endorsement is required from that Co-Is institution (see Section J.2 below). 

E. PLAN FOR PARTICIPATING SCIENTIST PROGRAM, AND DATA 

ANALYSIS PROGRAM (OPTIONAL) 

OSS policy encourages the addition of Participating Scientist Programs (PSPs) and Data 

Analysis Programs (DAPs) to broaden the scientific impact of missions. Investigations 

should include adequately funded PSPs and DAPs where these are appropriate. These 

programs are usually initiated no earlier than Phase E. Although OSS will independently 

solicit and administer these programs using competitive peer review, if such a program is 

proposed, the costs of implementing it must be included in the proposer’s estimate of the 

NASA OSS Cost (Section 5.9.1). 

F. PLAN FOR EDUCATION AND PUBLIC OUTREACH, TECHNOLOGY 

INFUSION/TRANSFER, AND SMALL DISADVANTAGED BUSINESSES 

The proposer must provide a statement that she/he understands NASA OSS requirements 

for Education and Public Outreach (E/PO) and is committed to carrying out an E/PO 

program that meets the goals described in Section 5.6 of the AO. The proposer must also 

provide a brief overview of the planned E/PO activities and their relationship to the 

proposed investigation. This overview should include a brief discussion of any unique 

characteristics of the mission that might provide unusual opportunities for E/PO. The 

proposer must declare any intention to include any experiment on the spacecraft that will 

be led by students, particularly pre-college students. Because of the length of the 
B-7 

Formulation and Implementation phases of New Frontiers missions, student–led 

experiments should be proposed only if there are compelling circumstances to justify its 

inclusion. Detailed plans for implementing the E/PO activities, including identification 

of and formal commitment from E/PO partner institutions, will be part of the Phase A 

Concept Study and will be evaluated as part of the confirmation process (see Section 

7.3.3 of this AO). 

The proposer must provide a statement that she/he understands NASA OSS goals for 

new/advanced technology transfer and intends to address these goals. Detailed plans for 

addressing these goals will be part of the Phase A Concept Study and will be evaluated as 

part of the confirmation process. 

As explained in Appendix A, Section XIII of this AO, proposers that are not small 

business concerns, seek contracts in excess of $500,000, and have subcontracting 

possibilities must submit subcontracting plans. These proposers must also include 

participation targets for small disadvantaged business concerns (SDBs) in the applicable 

NAICS Sub sector. This data will be evaluated as part of the selection process. New 

subcontracting plans and SDB participation targets will be required in conjunction with 

the Phase A Concept Studies and will be evaluated as part of the confirmation process. 

G. MISSION IMPLEMENTATION INCLUDING ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT 

This section must provide a description of the space flight mission through which the 

investigation is to be executed, including mission design, instrument accommodation, 

spacecraft, required launch vehicle, ground systems, communications approach (including 

usage of DSN infrastructure), and mission operations plan. Specific information should 

be included that describes the unique requirements placed on these mission elements by 

the science investigation. In some areas (e.g. instruments), the data requested may 

already be needed and presented in another section of the proposal (e.g., the Science 

Implementation section). In such cases, proposers may provide a reference to (those) 

section(s) and need not repeat the data in this section. 

Within this section, describe the development approach that will assure mission success. 

Include the following items to the degree they are known: 

• Heritage and maturity of mission elements (instruments, spacecraft, ground 

systems, and mission design, etc.); 

• Approach to the use or nonuse of redundancy and other reliability measures; 

• Requirements for burn-in of parts and total operating test time required 

without failure prior to flight; 

• Assembly, integration, and test flows and integration and test approach; 

• Environmental test philosophy (test flow and sequence, test margins, and test 

durations); 

• Product and mission assurance activities; 

• Systems engineering and trade studies (planned and/or completed); 
B-8 

• Potential risks to the proposed mission activities and plans for mitigating 

those risks; 

• Advanced development plans (new technology) for producing flight qualified 

hardware/software, including the strategy for bringing advanced development 

to flight qualification by the end of Phase B and/or backup plans should the 

advanced development fail to produce adequate maturity for flight; 

• Strategy for the management of on-board resources including propellant; 

• Planetary protection implementation (forward contamination control and back 

contamination prevention); 

• DSN infrastructure usage; and 

• Other Communication and Systems Parameters enumerated in NASA’s 

Mission Operations and Communications Services document (see New 

Frontiers Program Library). 

It is recognized that teaming arrangements to implement the investigation may not be 

complete at the time of the proposal. Proposers will not be penalized for this if it is 

demonstrated that there are candidate implementation approaches for the spacecraft, 

launch vehicle, communications, and ground systems that will allow the successful 

implementation of the investigation within the proposed cost and schedule. 

Although the maturity of the proposed design may require the results of later trades 

during the Phase A Concept Study, in addition to the information above, the specific data 

identified below should be provided (preferably in tables) to the extent known at the time 

the proposal is due and as applicable to the proposed mission configuration. 

1. General information. 

- Baseline launch date and launch window; 

- Launch energy (C3) required for baseline launch window;

- Mission duration (cruise, science, total); 

- Position and velocity at specified epochs (e.g., before and after maneuvers and 

critical events) including coordinate system used and assumptions involving force 

models and/or gravity models affecting the trajectory; 

- Date/Time of orbit insertion; 

- Orbit type (as applicable); 

- Orbit parameters for all science mission phases (semi-major axis, eccentricity, 

inclination, node time of day, argument of perigee, altitude); 

- Epoch time in Gregorian date and duration of each science mission phase (e.g., 

different orbits, flybys, etc.) corresponding to information above; involving force 

models and/or gravity models affecting the trajectory; 

- Orbital elements and gravitational parameters of any Nonplanetary target (e.g., 

asteroids, moons, comets) orbital elements and gravitational parameters; and 

- Earth-Spacecraft Distance (range) for each major event (orbit insertion, flybys, 

trajectory maneuver’s, etc.). 
B-9 

2. Downlink Information. 

- Communications System Parameters and other information (see NASA’s Mission 

Operations and Communications Services document in the NFPL for data 

required for Deep Space Network and commercial downlink options); 

- Data rate and data volume (kbps or Mbytes per day); 

- Data rate and data volume per day; 

- Bit error rate, onboard storage (Mbytes); 

- Power available for communications (Watts); 

- Number of data dumps per day, spacecraft data destination (e.g., the mission 

operations center); 

- Science data destination (e.g., a science operations center); and 

- Maximum time lag between data dump and data arrival at destination if relevant 

to science needs. 

3. Uplink Information.

- Communications Systems parameters and other Information requested in: NASA’s 

Mission Operations and Communications Services document in the NFPL, 

including data required for Deep Space Network and commercial uplink options; 

- Number of uplinks needed per day; 

- Number of bytes per uplink; 

- Bit error rate; and 

- Approach and schedule for obtaining license(s) for use of proposed frequency 

bands. 

4. Provision of critical event data. Critical events are defined as events that could result 

in the loss of the mission if anomalies occur (i.e., orbit insertion, 

entry/descent/landing, etc.), and telemetry is required for mission critical events to 

allow the cause of loss of mission to be determined. The approach and plans for how 

such data are to be measured and returned must be discussed. 

5. Contingencies and Margins. Using the definitions in the table below, 

- Provide estimates of the contingencies and margins for mass, power, and fuels at 

both the subsystem and system levels for the combined instrument payload and 

spacecraft; and 

- Provide the contingencies and margins for the requirements on the spacecraft, e.g., 

pointing accuracy, stability, attitude, and maneuvering, necessary for science 

operations (include design margins, when known) for the instrument payload 

alone. 

Definitions of Contingency and Margin 

Contingency (or Reserve), when added to a resource, results in the maximum 

expected value for that resource. Percent contingency is the value of the contingency 

divided by the value of the resource less the contingency. 
B-10 

Margin is the difference between the maximum possible value of a resource (the 

physical limit or the agreed-to limit) and the maximum expected value for a resource. 

Percent margin for a resource is the available margin divided by its maximum 

expected value. 

Example: A payload in the design phase has a currently estimated mass of 115 kg 

including a mass reserve of 15 kg. There is no other payload on the Expendable 

Launch Vehicle (ELV) and the ELV provider plans to allot the full capability of the 

vehicle, if needed. The ELV capability is 200 kg. The mass reserve is 15/(115-15) = 

15%, and the mass margin is 85 kg or 85/115 = 74%. 

Example: The end-of-mission life capability of a spacecraft power system is 200 

Watts. The proposed instrument is expected to use 40 Watts, and a 25% contingency 

is planned. If 75 Watts is allotted by the satellite provider, the reserve is (.25x40) =10 

Watts while the margin is 75 – (40+10) =25 Watts, or 25/50 = 50%. 

Using the term contingency equivalently to the term reserve, and acknowledging 

that the maximum expected resource value is equal to the maximum proposed 

resource value (including contingency), the above technical terms can be 

expressed in equation form as: 

 Contingency = Max Expected Resource Value – Proposed Resource Value 

 % Contingency = Contingency X 100 

 Max Expected Resource Value – Contingency 

 Margin = Max Possible Resource Value – Max Expected Resource Value 

 % Margin = Margin X 100 

Max Expected Resource Value 

6. Attitude and Control Requirements. 

- Control method (3-axis, spinner, gravity gradient, etc.; for a spin stabilized 

spacecraft, provide spin rate and axis in terms of spacecraft body coordinate 

frame); 

- Control reference (solar, inertial, nadir, limb, etc.); 

- Attitude requirements as a function of time during all science mission phases; 

- Attitude control requirements for bias, drift, stability or jitter, and rate for 

scanning (each axis); 

- Spacecraft attitude knowledge requirements at the instrument interface for bias, 

drift, jitter, and rate for scanning (each axis); 

- Agility (maneuvers, scanning, etc.); 

- Deployments (solar panel, antennas, etc.); 
B-11 

- Articulation (1- or 2 -axis solar arrays, antennas, gimbals, etc.); 

- On-orbit calibration (alignment, line-of-sight, thermal deformation); and 

- Attitude knowledge processing (e.g., real-time versus post processing, spaceborne versus ground). 

7. Instrument Characteristics. 

For each science instrument provide the following information: 

- Mass (include breakouts of electronics and aperture mass if known); 

- Viewing direction in body coordinates; 

- Operational modes; 

- Operational mode timeline; 

- Data demand for each instrument operational mode; 

- Onboard recording required from spacecraft; 

- Power demand for each instrument operational mode including peak, average, and 

stand-by power; 

- Supplemental power supplied by primary batteries; 

- Statement of whether instrument is active or passive; 

- Instrument thermal control capability; 

- Bias, drift, and noise of instrument data used in pointing control and knowledge 

determination; and 

- Character of significant internally generated jitter and momentum. 

8. Spacecraft Characteristics. 

To the extent known at the time of proposal submission, and as applicable to the 

proposed investigation, provide the following information (Note: for Missions of 

Opportunity (MOs), provide the information below that is related to the proposed 

investigation’s requirements on, and interfaces with, the sponsor’s instrument/spacecraft): 

- Spacecraft Parameters: 

• A block diagram of the spacecraft subsystem components; and 

• Sensor and actuator information (precision/errors, torque, and momentum 

storage capabilities, etc.). 

- Propulsion: 

• Estimated delta-V budget; 

• Propulsion type(s) (monoprop, bi-prop, dual-mode, solar electric, etc.) and 

associated propellant(s)/oxidizer(s); 

• Propellant mixture ratio (if bi-prop); and 

• Specific impulse of each propulsion mode. 

- Communications: 
B-12 

• Modes of communications operations - 

• For transmit-only mode: Mode timeline, data rate(s), and duration; 

• For receive-only mode: Mode timeline, data rate(s), and duration; 

• Antenna Tx and Rx patterns (if available); and 

• For Rx and Tx modes simultaneously: Mode timeline and duration. 

• For receive-only mode: Mode timeline, data rate(s), and duration; and 

• For Rx and Tx modes simultaneously: Mode timeline and duration. 

- Command and Data Handling: 

• Spacecraft housekeeping data demand. If known, time-lined data demands 

shall be provided for each subsystem operational mode, i.e., for Guidance, 

Navigation, and Communications: standby, fine pointing, and reaction 

wheel momentum management; and for Communications: transmit, and 

receive; 

• Data storage unit size (Mbits); 

• Maximum storage record rate; and 

• Maximum storage playback rate. 

- Power: 

• Definition of each spacecraft subsystem operational mode over all science 

phases (Note: provide power demand as well as operational schedule 

(timeline) for each operational mode); 

• Type of array structure (rigid, flexible, body mounted); 

• Solar array axes of rotation (vector projected in spacecraft coordinates); 

• Array size; 

• Solar cell type and efficiency; 

• Expected power generation at Beginning of Life (BOL) and End of Life 

(EOL); 

• Worst case Sun incidence angle to solar panels during science mission; 

• Battery type and storage capacity; 

• Worst case battery Depth of Discharge (DOD); and 

• Spacecraft bus voltage. 

For the New Frontiers Mission proposals, a specific portion of the Mission 

Implementation section (limit of 5 additional pages) may be devoted to the discussion of 

any proposed new technologies/advanced developments and the approach that will be 

taken to reduce their associated risks. Within this section, specific topics to be addressed 

should include: 

• Identification and justification of the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) for 

each proposed new development and/or advanced development at the time the 

proposal is submitted (Note: see TRL definitions in the NFPL); 

• Description of the proposed plan for bringing each of the identified items to a 

minimum of TRL 6, defined as “system/subsystem model or prototype 
B-13 

demonstration in a relevant environment, space, or ground” by Confirmation 

Review (CR) at the end of Phase B (include discussion of simulations, 

prototyping, systems testing, life testing, etc., as appropriate); 

• An estimation of the manpower, cost resources, and the schedule required to 

complete the above plans; and 

• If any fallbacks/alternatives exist and are planned (desirable but not 

mandatory), describe the cost, schedule, and performance liens they will 

impose on the baseline design and the decision milestones for their 

implementation. 

H. MANAGEMENT AND SCHEDULE 

This section should summarize the investigator's proposed management approach for the 

complete investigation including the E/PO. The management organization (including an 

organization chart) and decision-making process should be described and the teaming 

arrangement (as known) should be discussed. The responsibilities of team members, 

including contributors, and institutional commitments should be discussed. Unique 

capabilities that each team member organization brings to the team, as well as previous 

experience with similar systems and equipment, should be addressed. If no relevant 

previous experience is cited, the proposer must as a minimum, discuss their approach to 

providing the appropriate services and/or capabilities to assure investigation success. The 

specific roles and responsibilities of the PI and Project Manager (PM) must be described 

and the PI and PM identified, although other key project personnel need not be identified 

by name at this time. Risk management and risk mitigation plans (see section 5.4.4) must 

be described. This discussion should include identification of the top five perceived 

risks, descope strategies (if relevant), and management strategies for control, allocation, 

and release of technical, cost, and schedule reserves and margins. When major 

subcontracts are required, the acquisition strategy, including contract incentive policies, 

should be described. This section should also include a description of the National 

Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) and Nuclear Safety Launch Approval (if 

applicable) requirements for the proposed mission, and a brief description of the 

implementation plan, including schedule, for satisfying these requirements. 

A project schedule to meet the proposed launch date and covering all phases of the 

investigation should be provided. The schedule should include, as a minimum: 

• Proposed major project review dates; 

• Instrument development; 

• Spacecraft development; 

• Instrument-to-spacecraft integration and test; 

• Launch vehicle integration; 

• Mission operations and data analysis; and 

• Planning and implementation of the E/PO program. 
B-14 

The schedule reserve and critical path (i.e., the sequence of major activities and 

milestones that must be accomplished in the planned sequence and are critical to 

implementation success) should be clearly identified. 

A Level-1 Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) shall be provided as a part of the proposal 

that clearly links the project organization with the cost information to be provided in 

Table B-1 and provides the proposer with a template for the project schedule information 

requested above. Inclusion of additional WBS information (Levels 2 and 3) is 

encouraged relative to the flight system development (Phases B/C/D) to demonstrate clear 

understanding of the proposer’s implementation plans. 

Mission of Opportunity proposals should specifically address how the investigation team 

will interrelate with the sponsoring organization, organizationally and managerially. 

Mission of Opportunity proposals should also address: 

 

• The status of the commitment from the spacecraft builder/owner or sponsoring 

organization to fly the proposed instrument or conduct the proposed investigation; 

• If and how the proposed investigation relates to the spacecraft sponsor’s overall 

mission objectives; 

• The investigation development plan and how it fits in the development plan for the 

sponsor’s parent mission; 

• How the operations plan for the proposed investigation fits within the parent 

mission of the sponsoring organization; and 

• The investigation organizational interfaces and plans for reporting to NASA. 

I. COST AND COST ESTIMATING METHODOLOGY 

This section shall include an estimated cost of the investigation that encompasses all 

proposed activities, including all applicable mission phases, launch services, development 

of the ground data system, implementation of E/PO, fees, and contributions. These costs 

shall be consistent with the requirements described in Section 5 and 7 of this AO. In 

particular, where NASA-provided services are used, NASA Civil Service labor and 

supporting NASA center infrastructure must be costed on a full cost accounting basis (see 

section 5.9.2). The amount of funding required in each Fiscal Year (FY) should be 

identified by providing the data requested in Tables B-1 and B-2 for New Frontiers 

investigations; Mission of Opportunity investigations should utilize only those lines in the 

tables which are applicable. The top portion of Table B-1 requests cost data relative to 

the NASA OSS Cost while the bottom portion requests cost data relative to 

Contributions. Table B-2 summarizes the NASA OSS Cost by phase. The completed 

tables will not be counted against the page limit. Table B-3 gives the NASA inflation 

index to be used to calculate real year dollars. Proposers must submit the requested data 

in formats shown in Tables B-1 and B-2.

 

The methodology used to estimate the cost (e.g. grass roots estimates, vendor quotes, 

specific cost models, past performance, and/or cost estimating relationships from 
B-15 

analogous missions) should be discussed. Budget reserve strategy, including budget 

reserve levels as a function of mission phase, should be discussed. All assumptions used 

in developing cost estimates should be provided to help facilitate reviewer understanding 

of the proposed cost.

J. APPENDICES 

The following additional information is required to be supplied with the proposal as 

Appendices unless otherwise specified, and as such, will not be counted within the 

specified page limit. NO OTHER APPENDICES ARE PERMITTED. 

1. Statement of Work (SOW) and Funding Information. An SOW is required 

regardless of whether the proposal is submitted from a non-Government or a 

Government institution. This SOW must include the requirement for a Phase A 

Concept Study report that is described in the Guidelines and Criteria for the 

Phase A Concept Study document available in the NFPL. This SOW must include 

general tasks statements for Phases B/C/D and for Phase E for New Frontiers 

Mission investigations and MO investigations. All SOWs should include the 

following as a minimum: Scope of Work, Deliverables (including science data), 

and Government Responsibilities (as applicable). SOWs need not be more than a 

few pages in length. If more than one contractual arrangement between NASA 

and the proposing team is required, funding information must be provided that 

identifies how funds are to be allocated among the organizations, including a 

separate SOW for each organization. 

2. Letters of Endorsement. Letters of endorsement must be provided from all U.S. 

and non-U.S. organizations offering critical facilities (e.g., integration and test, 

thermal vacuum chambers, L-Tool, etc.), goods, hardware, software, and/or 

services (including those of Co-Investigators). These letters must provide 

evidence that the senior officials of the participating institutions and/or 

appropriate Government officials are aware and supportive of the proposed 

investigation, and will provide funding for their stated participation in the 

investigation if it is selected by NASA, and must be signed by officials authorized 

to commit those organizations as proposed. Failure to provide such Letters of 

Endorsement from all parties involved in the proposal can be reason for declaring 

the proposal noncompliant and returned without review. 

3. Resumes. Provide resumes for all science team members (PI and Co-Is) identified 

in the science section, for all key project personnel who are identified by name in 

the proposal, and for all key E/PO personnel. Each resume should contain the 

following information in the following order: 

a) The name and employing organization of the individual; 

b) A one or two sentence description of the individual’s job or role on the 

 proposed investigation; 

c) A resume that clearly shows the experience related to the responsibilities 
B-16 

 that the individual will perform for the proposed investigation, including (as 

 appropriate) the analysis and publication of final science results; 

d) The commitment signature of the individual and date; and 

e) If any portion of the commitment is by way of a contribution to the 

 proposed investigation (i.e. that is, not to be supported by NASA 

 through the proposal), the amount of the contribution in terms of 

 approximate number of Full Time Equivalent (FTE) work years over the 

 nominal duration of the proposed project (i.e., through Phase E) and the 

 signature of an authorizing official of the individual’s organization. 

The complete resume forms may be no longer than two pages for each participant 

and should be organized alphabetically after that of the PI. 

4. Draft International Participation Plan - Discussion on Compliance with U.S. 

Export Laws and Regulations. Investigations that include international 

participation, either through involvement of non-U.S. nationals and/or 

involvement of non-U.S. entities must include a section discussing compliance 

with U.S. export laws and regulations; e.g., 22 CFR 120-130, et seq. and 15 CFR 

730-774, et seq., as applicable to the scenario surrounding the particular 

international participation. The discussion must describe the proposed 

international participation in detail and include, but not be limited to, whether or 

not the international participation may require the proposer to obtain the prior 

approval of the Department of State or the Department of Commerce via a 

technical assistance agreement or an export license, or whether a license 

exemption/exception may apply. If prior approvals via licenses are necessary, 

discuss whether the license has been applied for, or if not, the projected timing of 

the application and any implications for the schedule. Information regarding U.S. 

export regulations is available at http://www.pmdtc.org and 

http://www.bxa.doc.gov. Proposers are advised that under U.S. law and 

regulation, spacecraft and their specifically designed, modified, or configured 

systems, components, parts, etc., such as the instrumentation being sought under 

this AO are generally considered "Defense Articles" on the U.S. Munitions List 

and, therefore, subject to the provisions of the International Traffic in Arms 

Regulations, 22 CFR 120-130, et seq. (See AO, Section 5.10) 

5. Outline of Technical Responsibilities Between U.S. and International Partners. 

These outlines will be used by the Office of External Relations, NASA 

Headquarters, as the starting point for formalizing the agency-to-agency 

agreements that will be required if the investigation is selected. (See AO, Section 

5.10) 

6. Compliance with Planetary Protection Requirements. NASA's Planetary 

Protection Policy (see NPD 8020.7E and NPG 8020.12B located in the NFPL) 

imposes certain restrictions on mission operations and spacecraft cleanliness 

depending on the particular type of mission (orbiter vs. lander/life-detection vs. no 
B-17 

life detection) and the specific environments to be visited. The proposal should 

indicate (i) the anticipated planetary protection category of the mission under 

NASA directives; (ii) the proposed mission operational accommodations to 

comply with the anticipated requirement; and (iii) the proposed steps to be taken 

for the preparation of the orbital and (if any) landed portions of the spacecraft to 

comply with the requirements for overall microbiological cleanliness and 

recontamination prevention prior to launch. If necessary, the proposal should also 

indicate the nature of the proposed implementation of back-contamination control 

and subsequent containment and testing of returned samples, or the proposed 

rationale for the mission to be relieved from the containment requirement. 

Proposals should address the organization(s) responsible for implementing those 

steps. 

7. Compliance with Procurement Regulations by NASA PI Proposals. Proposals 

submitted by NASA employees as PIs should contain the following information 

concerning the process by which non-Government participants were included in 

the proposal. The proposal should: (i) indicate that the supplies or services of the 

proposed non-Government participant(s) are available under an existing NASA 

contract; (ii) make it clear that the capabilities, products, or services of these 

participant(s) are sufficiently unique to justify a sole source acquisition; or (iii) 

describe the open process that was used for selecting proposed team members. 

While a formal solicitation is not required, the process cited in (iii) above should 

include at least the following competitive aspects: notice of the opportunity to 

participate to potential sources, submissions from and/or discussions with 

potential sources, and objective criteria for selecting team members among 

interested sources. The proposal should address how the selection of the proposed 

team members followed the objective criteria and is reasonable from both a 

technical and cost standpoint. The proposal should also include a representation 

that the PI has examined his/her financial interests in or concerning the proposed 

team members and has determined that no personal conflict of interest exists. The 

proposal must provide a certification by a NASA official superior to the PI 

verifying the process for selecting contractors as proposed team members, 

including the absence of conflicts of interest. 

8. Acronyms and Abbreviations. A reference acronym list is provided in the NFPL. 

 

9. References. As an option, the proposal may provide a list of reference documents 

and materials used in its preparation. These documents and materials themselves 

may not be submitted except as a part of the proposal and included within the 

prescribed page count, nor should it be necessary to consult them to adequately 

review the proposal.
B-18 

SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL

Cost Element ** FY1 FYx RY $ FY03$ FY1 ... FYz RY $ FY03$ RY $ FY03$

Start to Launch + 30 Days 

(Phases A/B/C/D) Enter each cost element

Phase A Concept Study

Proj. Mgmt/Miss. Analysis/Sys. Eng.

Instrument A

Instrument B

Instrument ...

Instr. Integration, Assembly and Test

Subtotal - Instruments

Spacecraft bus

S/C Integration, Assembly and Test

Other Hardware Elements (1)

Launch Ops (Launch +30 days)

Subtotal - Spacecraft

Science Team Support

Pre-Launch GDS/MOS Development

DSN/Tracking

Other (2)

Subtotal Phases A-D before Reserves

Instrument Reserves

Spacecraft Reserves

Other Reserves

Total Phases A/B/C/D

Launch + 30 Days to End of Mission 

(Phase E) Enter each cost element

Mission Operations & Data Analysis 

(including Project Management)

DSN/Tracking

Other (2)

Subtotal Phase E before Reserves

Reserves

Total Phase E

Launch Services

RPS(s)

Total NASA Phase A-E 

Phase F (Extended Mission if 

Applicable)

PSP

DAP

Total NASA Cost

Contributions (2)

Total Contributions

Total Mission Cost = 

(1) Other Hardware Elements: Probes, Sample Return Canister, Etc.

(2) Specify each item on a separate line; include Education & Public Outreach, Tech Infusion/Transfer, facilities, etc.

 * Note: Formulation = Phase A + B; Implementation = Phase C + D + E

** See Cost Elements document in the New Frontiers Program Library

TABLE B-1

TOTAL MISSION COST FUNDING PROFILE

FY Costs in Real Year Dollars (to nearest thousand), Totals in RY and Fixed Year '03 Dollars

Formulation Formulation* Implementation Implementation* LIFE CYCLE

TOTAL
B-19 

 TABLE B-2 

MISSION PHASE SUMMARY OF NASA OSS COST

FY Costs in Real Year Dollars (to nearest thousand); Totals in RY and FY2003 Dollars 

Cost Element FY1 FY2 FY3 FYn RY$ FY03$ 

Phase A 

Phase B 

Phases C and D 

Phase E 

Launch Vehicle/Launch Services 

 Total OSS Mission Cost 

Contributions 

 Total Mission Cost 

TABLE B-3 

NASA NEW START INFLATION INDEX

Fiscal Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

Inflation Rate 0% 3.1% 3.1% 3.1% 3.1% 3.1% 3.1% 

Cumulative Inflation Index 1.0 1.031 1.063 1.096 1.130 1.165 1.201 

Use an inflation rate of 3.1% for years beyond 2009. 
C-1 

APPENDIX C

REGULATIONS GOVERNING PROCUREMENT OF 

FOREIGN GOODS OR SERVICES

The following Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clauses cover the purchase of 

foreign goods and services and may be included in contracts resulting from this 

Announcement of Opportunity: 

52.225-1 Buy American Act -- Supplies (May 2002) 

52.225-8 Duty-Free Entry (February 2000) 

52.225-13 Restrictions on Certain Foreign Purchases (July 2000) 

52.225-15 Sanctioned European Union Country End Products (February 2000) 

52.225-16 Sanctioned European Union Country Services (February 2000) 

Note that additional Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and NASA FAR Supplement 

clauses may be applicable to specific procurement actions as required by the cognizant 

Contracting Officer. 

The proposer is directed to the Federal Acquisition Regulations and the NASA FAR 

Supplements for further information on these regulations. Access information for these 

documents is given in the New Frontiers Program Library (see Appendix D). 
D-1 

APPENDIX D 

NEW FRONTIERS PROGRAM LIBRARY 

The New Frontiers Program Library (NFPL) includes documents available electronically 

via the Internet; many documents are also available as a paper copy from their original 

source. Note that not all documents are actually located in the NFPL. For these 

documents, an Internet hyperlink has been provided via the NFPL to allow download of 

the documents from their home location. 

 

It is incumbent upon the proposer to ensure that the documents used in proposal 

preparation are of the date and/or revision listed in this Announcement of 

Opportunity (AO).

The NFPL is accessible on the World Wide Web at the URL: 

http://newfrontiers.larc.nasa.gov/newfrontiers/NFPL.html

NASA and Office of Space Science (OSS) Strategies and Policies

NASA 2003 Strategic Plan (February 2003)

Describes strategy and goals for achieving NASA’s mission and vision. 

The Space Science Enterprise Strategic Plan (November 2000)

Describes the goals and outlook of NASA’s Space Science Enterprise, and of the 

major ideas described in the context of the overall NASA Strategic Plan. 

Solar System Exploration 

Web site describing NASA’s Solar System exploration programs and missions. 

Roadmap for the Office of Space Science Solar System Exploration 2003 Roadmap 

Division (March 2003) 

Describes NASA’s OSS strategy and plans for exploring the Solar System. 

The Space Science Enterprise Integrated Technology Strategy (October 1998) 

Describes efforts to manage technology infusion into future Office of Space 

Science (OSS) missions and to promote technology transfer to the private sector. 

National Research Council (NRC) Documents

NRC Planetary Science Decadal Survey (July 2002) 

 Presents NRC decadal recommendations for Solar System exploration. 
D-2 

NRC Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration: Exploring the TransNeptunian Solar System (1998) 

Presents NRC recommendations for the exploration of the Trans-Neptunian Solar 

System. 

The NRC Committee for Planetary and Lunar Exploration (COMPLEX) Report 

(November 2001) 

Presents COMPLEX’s assessment of planetary exploration science and priorities.

New Frontiers Guidelines and Requirements Documents 

NASA's Mission Operations and Communications Services (May 2003)

Describes the functions and costs of Ground Data Systems and Mission 

Operations and Data Analysis available via NASA. 

New Frontiers Launch Services Information Summary (September 2003) 

Describes capabilities and costs of launch services that are available to launch 

New Frontiers spacecraft selected pursuant to this AO.

Navigation and Ancillary Information Facility Services for New Frontiers Missions 

(January 2003) 

Describes the NASA Ancillary Information Facility and the Spacecraft Planet 

Instrument C-matrix Events (SPICE) capability for mission design, mission 

planning, observation planning, and interpretation of scientific observations. 

Specifications for Space Radioisotope Power Systems (RPS) for New Frontiers 

(September, 2003) 

A series of documents describing the technical specifications of for utilizing RPS 

options for on New Frontiers missions. 

 In-Space Propulsion (ISP) (November 2002) 

Describes the technical specifications for utilizing ISP on New Frontiers missions. 

 

Anticipated Costs and Capabilities of the NASA Curatorial Facility (September 2003) 

 Describes the NASA Curatorial Facility costs and capabilities. 

Guidelines and Criteria for the Phase A Concept Study (February 2003) 

Provides proposers who are selected via the AO with guidelines and criteria for 

preparation of the Concept Study Report. 

Cost Elements Definitions (November 2002) 

Provides definitions for the major cost elements for proposals. 
D-3 

Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) Definitions (2001) 

 Provides definitions for TRLs. 

Announcement of Opportunity Acronym List (September 2003)

Provides a list of acronyms used in the AO. 

Office of Space Science OSS Education and Public Outreach 

(E/PO) Documents 

Office of Space Sciences FY 2000, 2001, and 2002 Education and Public Outreach 

Annual Reports

Describe the breadth of OSS Education and Public Outreach (E/PO) programs and 

accomplishments for FY 2000, 20001, and 2002. 

Explanatory Guide to the Office of Space Science Education and Public Outreach 

Evaluation Criteria (February 2002) 

Answers frequently asked questions, and elaborates on each of the OSS E/PO 

criteria. 

Implementing the Office of Space Science Education and Public Outreach Strategy: A 

Critical Evaluation at the Six-Year Mark (March 2003) 

Describes OSS’s overall approach to implementing its E/PO strategy. 

Partners in Education: A Strategy for Integrating Education and Public Outreach 

into NASA’s Space Science Programs (March 1995)

Describes the overall strategy for integrating E/PO into NASA’s s Space Science 

programs. 

Office of Space Science Education and Public Outreach Newsletters

Describe OSS E/PO newsworthy activities. 

General Guidelines and Requirements Documents 

Example Mission Definition and Requirements Agreement

Provides an example of a mission definition and requirements agreement between 

principal organizations for supporting an OSS mission. 

NPG 7120.5B NASA Program and Project Management Processes and Requirements 

(November 2002)

Provides information on typical activities, milestones, and products in the 

development and execution of NASA missions. 
D-4 

NPD 8730.4 Software Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) Policy 

(August 2001) 

Provides information on the NASA IV&V policy. 

NPD 8610.7 Launch Services Risk Mitigation Policy for NASA-Owned or NASASponsored Payloads (February 1999) 

Provides information on NASA’s launch services mitigation policy. 

NPG NPD 7100.10D Curation of Extraterrestrial Materials (February 2003) 

Provides information on the curation of extraterrestrial materials via NASA’s 

Curatorial Facility at JSC. 

Planetary Data System (PDS) (April 2001) 

Web site describing the basic formats and requirements used for the archiving of 

planetary data products by the NASA PDS. 

Planetary Protection Requirements

 A series of documents describing Planetary Protection Requirements for NASA 

spacecraft missions. 

ISO 9000 Series 

The following ISO 9000 quality documents describe current national and NASA 

standards of quality processes and procedures: 

ISO 9000:2000, Quality Management Systems – Fundamentals and 

Vocabulary 

ISO 9001:2000, Quality Management Systems – Requirements 

ISO 9004:2000, Quality Management Systems – Guidelines for Performance 

Improvements 

Note: These ISO 9000-related documents are copyrighted and cannot be reproduced 

without appropriate compensation. For copies contact: 

American Society for Quality (ASQ) 

P.O. Box 3005 

Milwaukee, WI 53201-3005 

U.S.A. 

Tel.: (800) 248-1946 

URL: http://www.asq.org/

For background on NASA ISO policy and the status of its implementation, visit 

http://iso9000.nasa.gov/.
D-5 

NASA Technology Transfer Resources 

Web site providing an integrated information resource for NASA technology 

transfer and commercialization. 

Directives and Procurement-Related Information 

NASA Online Directives Information System (NODIS) Library

Provides online access to NASA Policy Directives (NPDs – formerly NMIs), 

NASA Procedures and Guidelines (NPGs – formerly NHBs), and NASA Policy 

Charters (NPCs). 

Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) General Services Administration 

(URL: http://www.arnet.gov/far/)

NASA FAR Supplement Regulations 

(URL: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/procurement/regs/nfstoc.htm) 

NASA Financial Management Manual 

(URL: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/fmm/)

NPG 5800.1D -- Grant and Cooperative Agreement Handbook (March 2003) 

(URL: http://ec.msfc.nasa.gov/hq/grcover.htm) 

Environmental Quality Regulations, 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508

(URL: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_02/40cfrv28_02.html) 

Code of Federal Regulations

(URL: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/index.html) 
E-1 

APPENDIX E

CERTIFICATIONS

The text of the following documents are included for reference only. Submission of the 

signed printout of web page as directed for the Cover Page/Proposal Summary certifies 

compliance with these certifications. 

1. Certification of Compliance with the NASA Regulations Pursuant to

 Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs

The (Institution, corporation, firm, or other organization on whose behalf this assurance 

is signed, hereinafter called "Applicant ") hereby agrees that it will comply with Title VI 

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-352), Title IX of the Education Amendments of 

1962 (20 U.S.C. 1680 et seq.), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended 

(29 U.S.C. 794), and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 16101 et seq.), and 

all requirements imposed by or pursuant to the Regulation of the National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration (14 CFR Part 1250) (hereinafter called "NASA") issued 

pursuant to these laws, to the end that in accordance with these laws and regulations, no 

person in the U.S. shall, on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, handicapped 

condition, or age be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be 

otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity for which the 

Applicant receives federal financial assistance from NASA; and hereby give assurance 

that it will immediately take any measure necessary to effectuate this agreement. 

If any real property or structure thereon is provided or improved with the aid of federal 

financial assistance extended to the Applicant by NASA, this assurance shall obligate the 

Applicant, or in the case of any transfer of such property, any transferee, for the period 

during which the real property or structure is used for a purpose for which the federal 

financial assistance is extended or for another purpose involving the provision of similar 

services or benefits. If any personal property is so provided, this assurance shall obligate 

the Applicant for the period during which the federal financial assistance is extended to it 

by NASA. 

This assurance is given in consideration of and for the purpose of obtaining any and all 

federal grants, loans, contracts, property, discounts, or other federal financial assistance 

extended after the date hereof to the Applicant by NASA, including installment payments 

after such date on account of applications for federal financial assistance which were 

approved before such date. The Applicant recognized and agrees that such federal 

financial assistance will be extended in reliance on the representations and agreements 

made in this assurance, and that the United States shall have the right to seek judicial 

enforcement of this assurance. This assurance is binding on the Applicant, its successors, 

transferees, and assignees, and the person or persons whose signatures appear below are 

authorized to sign on behalf of the Applicant. 
E-2 

2. Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility Matters

 (Primary Covered Transaction)

This certification is required by the regulations implementing Executive Order 12549, 

Debarment and Suspension, 14 CFR Part 1265. 

A. The applicant certifies that it and its principals: 

(a) Are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared 

ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from covered transactions by any Federal 

department or agency; 

(b) Have not within a three-year period preceding this application been convicted or 

had a civil judgment rendered against them for commission of fraud or a criminal 

offense in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public 

(Federal, State, or Local) transaction or contract under a public transaction; 

violation of Federal or State antitrust statutes or commission of embezzlement, 

theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false 

statements, or receiving stolen property; 

(c) Are not presently indicted for or otherwise criminally or civilly charged by a 

government entity (Federal, State, or Local) with commission of any of the 

offenses enumerated in paragraph A.(b) of this certification; 

(d) Have not within a three-year period preceding this application/proposal had one or 

more public transactions (Federal, State, or Local) terminated for cause or default; 

and 

B. Where the applicant is unable to certify to any of the statements in this certification, 

he or she shall attach an explanation to this application. 

C. Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary 

Exclusion -- Lowered Tier Covered Transactions (Subgrants or Subcontracts) 

(a) The prospective lower tier participant certifies, by submission of this proposal, 

that neither it nor its principles is presently debarred, suspended, proposed for 

debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this 

transaction by any federal department of agency. 

(b) Where the prospective lower tier participant is unable to certify to any of the 

statements in this certification, such prospective participant shall attach an 

explanation to this proposal. 
E-3 

3. Certification Regarding Lobbying

As required by Section 1352 Title 31 of the U.S. Code for persons entering into a grant or 

cooperative agreement over $100,000, the applicant certifies that: 

(a) No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid by or on behalf of 

the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an 

officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, in connection with 

making of any Federal grant, the entering into of any cooperative, and the 

extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal 

grant or cooperative agreement; 

(b) If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid 

to any person for influencing or attempting an officer or employee of any agency, 

Member of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection 

with this Federal grant or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete 

Standard Form -- LLL, “Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying,” in accordance 

with its instructions. 

(c) The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included 

in the award documents for all subawards at all tiers (including subgrants, 

contracts under grants and cooperative agreements, and subcontracts), and that all 

subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly. 

This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed 

when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a 

prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by S1352, title 31, U.S. 

Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil 

penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure.
F- 1

APPENDIX F

NEW FRONTIERS PROGRAM PLANNING BUDGET PROFILE

The New Frontiers Program funding profile for future missions is subject to a wide 

variety of pressures. For planning purposes, the five-year forecast of NASA OSS funding 

for a new mission is provided in the table below (in Real Year Million Dollars). These 

levels represent the projected highest level of available funding for the years FY 2004-

2009, but unused portions of funds in each of these years can be used in the following 

year(s) if necessary. In addition, these levels represent the total available for selections 

made through this AO for all costs to NASA OSS, including launch vehicle costs and 

Deep Space Mission System (DSMS) services as provided in New Frontiers Launch 

Services Information Summary, and NASA’s Mission Operations and Communications 

Services documents located in the New Frontiers Program Library as listed in Appendix 

D. 

FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 

Total ($M) $1.2 $88 $114 $175 $160 $140 

The NASA forecast for specific budgets beyond FY 2008 are not yet available, and the 

FY2009 entry for the projected budget profile is only an estimate. But future budgets are 

expected to be sufficient to cover any funding requirements necessary for missions 

proposed to this AO. New Frontiers missions do not need to consider yearly funding 

limitations for FY 2010 and beyond. 
G- 1

APPENDIX G 

PROPOSAL CHECKLIST

The following proposal checklist will be used by NASA to accomplish the compliance 

check on all proposals received in response to this AO. 

Administrative 

1. Proposal delivered on time §8.0 

2. Proposal included copy of electronic cover page and summary §6.3.2 

3. Original PI signature included §6.3.2 

4. Original authorizing official signature included §6.3.2 

5. Correct number of copies §6.3.3 

6. Meets page limits Appendix B 

7. Includes CD with every copy §6.3.3 

8. Meets general guidelines (one volume original easy to 

disassemble, no more than 5 fold out pages, one inch margins, 

maximum 15 characters/inch --approximately 12 pt font) 

Appendix B 

9. Required appendices included, and no additional appendices Appendix B 

10. Budgets submitted in required formats Appendix B 

11. Letters of endorsement from all organizations contributing 

critical goods and services including Co-Is, from all major 

participants, and from any required funding organizations 

§5.9.3, §6.3.2, 

Appendix B 

12. Letters of endorsement from participating non-U.S. institutions §5.10, §8.0, 

Appendix B 

Scientific 

13. For a full mission investigation, addresses the majority of the 

Science objectives of one of the four generic missions 

specifically solicited in this AO 

§2.1 

14. Appropriate data archiving plan §1.1 

15. For full mission investigation, defines both a Baseline mission 

and a minimum Performance Floor science mission 

§5.11.4 
G- 2

Technical 

16. Complete investigation (Phases A-E) for full mission, or 

allowed type of Mission of Opportunity 

§1.1 

17. Team led by a single PI §5.4.1 

18. Proposed budget within cost cap §1.1, §5.11.6, 

§5.11.7, §5.12.7 

19. Contributions within contribution limit §5.9.3 

20. Launch services and nuclear power sources provided by U.S. 

sources, and included within the cost cap 

§1.1, §5.11.2, 

§5.11.3, §5.3.2 

21. Phase A costs within cost limit §5.11.8, §5.12.7 

22. Cost reserve through the end of Phase B of at least 25 percent 

of all costs through the end of Phase D except ELV and RPS. 

§1.1, §5.9.1 

23. Launch date for mission investigations no later than June 30, 

2010, and also commitment date for MO before Dec. 31, 2005, 

and launch by Dec. 31 2008 

§1.1, §5.11.5, 

§5.12.8 

24. Includes E/PO, technology infusion/transfer, and SDB 

commitments 

§5.6, §5.7, §5.8, 

Appendix B