National Aeronautics August 2, 1999

and Space Administration AO-99-OES-02

University Earth System Science (UnESS)

Project Announcement of Opportunity

Office of Earth Science

Notice of Intent to Propose Due October 20, 1999

Proposal Due: December 1, 1999
(this page intentionally blank)
i

University Earth System Science Project

Announcement of Opportunity

Table of Contents

1.0 Description of Opportunity............................................................................ 1

1.1 Background and Provisions

1.2 Proposal Evaluation, Selection, and Downselect Process

1.3 Proposal Opportunity Period and Schedule

2.0 Earth System Science Program........................................................................ 4

2.1 Earth Science Research Goals

2.2 University Earth System Science (UnESS) Project Objectives

3.0 University Earth System Science Project Requirements, Constraints, and Guidelines.... 5

3.1 General Project Requirements, Constraints and Guidelines

3.2 Mission Options

3.3 International Participation

4.0 Proposal Preparation and Submission............................................................... 8

4.1 Preproposal Activities

4.2 Format and Content of Proposals

4.3 Submission Information

5.0 Proposal Evaluation, Selection, Debriefing, and Implementation............................. 13

5.1 Evaluation and Selection Processes

5.2 Evaluation Criteria

5.3 Concept Study Selection Considerations

5.4 Downselect Considerations

5.5 Debriefings

5.6 Award Administration, Management, and Funding

6.0 Conclusion................................................................................................ 26

Appendices

A The Earth Science Enterprise Earth Science Research and Applications Themes....... A-1

B General Instructions and Provisions............................................................ B-1

C Guidelines for Proposal Preparation........................................................... C-1

D Contents of the University Earth System Science (UnESS) Project Library............. D-1

E Regulations Governing Procurement of Foreign Goods or Services...................... E-1

F Certifications...................................................................................... F-1

G Definitions and Acronyms....................................................................... G-1
(this page intentionally blank)
1

University Earth System Science Project

Announcement of Opportunity

1.0 Description of Opportunity

1.1 Background and Provisions

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Office of Earth Science

announces the opportunity to conduct innovative space-borne Earth system investigations

in the form of complete spaceflight missions or secondary payload instruments through

the University Earth System Science (UnESS) Project. This Announcement of

Opportunity (AO) is intended to foster the development of the next generation of Earth

system scientists, engineers, managers, educators, and entrepreneurs through significant

and meaningful hands-on student involvement in Earth observation space missions at the

university level. The hands-on student involvement should include helping prepare the

proposal through analysis and distribution of the data to the scientific community. This

AO will give equal weight to the scientific/applications and student involvement aspects

of the proposal. The scientific merit of the mission can be intrinsic to the mission itself,

or based on the impact of the technology demonstrated through the mission. For the

purposes of this announcement, the term “Earth system science/applications”

encompasses all of the Earth Science Enterprise’s goals.

The Office of Earth Science is the NASA headquarters office that manages the Earth

Science Enterprise. The Earth Science Enterprise is one of four NASA strategic

enterprises; implemented NASA-wide through the NASA Centers and through academic

and industry partners.

1.1.1 Earth Science Enterprise Goals

The goals of the Earth Science Enterprise are to use the global perspective of

observations from space to develop an understanding of the total Earth system and the

effects of natural and human-induced changes on the global environment.

The program of the Enterprise will be guided by the following scientific themes:

• Biology and Biogeochemistry of Ecosystems and the Global Carbon Cycle

• The Global Water and Energy Cycle

• Climate Variability and Prediction

• Atmospheric Chemistry

• Solid Earth Science

In addition, the Enterprises fosters applications research and commercial developments

aimed at more pragmatic issues including:
2

• Food and Fiber

• Natural Resources

• Disaster Management

• Environmental Quality

• Urban and Infrastructure

• Human Health and Safety

Additional information concerning these themes is provided in Section 2.1, Appendix A,

and through appropriate links found on the Office of Earth Science homepage at Internet

address http://www.earth.nasa.gov.

1.1.2 Commercial Endeavors Provision

Both National and NASA policy require NASA to support private-sector investment in

commercial space activities by committing the U.S. government to purchase

commercially available goods and services. In addition, NASA’s policy is to work

cooperatively with other U.S. government agencies and our International partners in the

development of a comprehensive capability to observe and understand the Earth. NASA

will purchase commercial data whenever the commercial data are cost effective and meet

NASA's requirements, rather than develop a mission that produces comparable data. If at

the time of proposal evaluation there is a likely or approved measurement capability

similar to that proposed, these policies will preclude selection of that proposal. NASA

will select a mission only if the proposer can demonstrate that the proposed mission can

deliver science data that does not compete with or duplicate other capabilities.

1.1.3 General Provisions for this Announcement of Opportunity

Proposals submitted in response to this AO must be for complete end-to-end

investigations encompassing all mission phases, including flight hardware development.

Proposals must provide for significant and meaningful “HANDS-ON” student

involvement across a variety of university schools (e.g., Engineering, Science, Business,

Journalism and Communications, Graphic and Fine Art, Education, Law, etc.). In

addition, the participation of Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) and

Other Minority Universities (OMU) including Hispanic serving institutions or Tribal

colleges and universities are strongly encouraged. The list of U.S. accredited post

secondary minority institutions can be found at the Internet address

http://www.ed.gov/offices/OCR/99minin.html.

For purposes of this AO, mission phases (See NASA Document NPG 7120.5A) are

defined as follows:

Phase 1: Mission Concept Studies

Phase 2: Mission Definition and Preliminary Design

Phase 3: Mission Detailed Design

Phase 4: Mission Development and Launch

Phase 5: Mission Operations and Data Analysis, Archival, and Dissemination
3

UnESS investigations can be complete flight missions using free-flyers on expendable

launch vehicles or the Space Shuttle, or the investigation can be a partial mission on

another spacecraft, International Space Station (ISS) or Space Shuttle cargo bay launched

by the Space Shuttle or another launch vehicle. The ISS opportunities include external

attached payloads intended for the EXPRESS (EXpedite the PRocessing of Experiments

for the Space Station) Pallet and internal, pressurized payloads intended for the Window

Observational Research Facility (WORF). Both opportunities are described in the ISS

UnESS Research Opportunities document found in the UnESS Project Library. No

balloons, aircraft, or sounding rocket mission will be considered, although these may be

included in support of the space flight mission, for example for calibration/validation

measurements. Investigations are capped at $15M in NASA Earth Science Enterprise

funding. Lower cost investigations are encouraged, and those investigations proposed at

or near the cap will not be able to adjust to above the cap during the Concept Study.

1.2 Proposal Evaluation, Selection, and Downselect Process

Proposals will be assessed against the criteria given in Section 5.2 by panels of

individuals who are peers of the proposers in the relevant scientific/applications,

technical, management, cost and educational areas. The UnESS Evaluation Executive

Committee will review the results of the proposal evaluations, conduct an independent

assessment of the evaluations, and categorize the proposals in accordance with the NASA

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Supplement (NFS) Part 1872.0 (See Section 5.1).

After this review, the Committee will present the final categorization results, the results

of other reviews and evaluations, the total proposed costs, and comments and

recommendations from the Office of Earth Science Division Directors to the Selection

Official, the Office of Earth Science Associate Administrator. The UnESS Selection

Official will nominally select six proposals for nine-month concept studies. Once these

studies are complete, each team must submit a Concept Study Report. NASA will

conduct a Downselect Process using the same general evaluation criteria listed in Section

5.2 to select the nominally two investigations that will continue into definition,

development, flight, mission operations and data analysis and distribution. Section 5.0

provides additional details on these activities.

1.3 Proposal Opportunity Period and Schedule

NASA is seeking UnESS investigations through this AO with mission launch dates in

2003 and/or 2004. Investigations that can be ready for launch earlier will be considered,

although hardware funding under this AO will not be available until after the

downselection. Investigations with anticipated launch dates later than this should be

proposed in response to subsequent UnESS announcements that are planned to be

released every two years. If your instrumentation requires additional development to

prepare for future solicitations, we encourage you to consider proposing to NASA

technology development programs such as the Instrument Incubator Program (IIP).
4

The following schedule describes the major milestones for this UnESS AO.

Announcement of Opportunity release August 2, 1999

Questions for the Preproposal Conference September 1, 1999

Preproposal Conference September 10, 1999

Notice of intent due October 20, 1999

Proposal submittal due by 4:30 p.m. EST December 1, 1999

Non-U.S. Letter(s) of Endorsement due January 15, 2000

Selections for Concept Studies (target) February 2000

Award (target) March 2000

Concept Studies Complete (9 months) December 1, 2000

Downselect for Definition, Development and Flight February 2001

Flights 2003 and/or 2004

2.0 Earth System Science Program

2.1 Earth Science Research Goals

The goals of the Earth Science Enterprise are to use the global perspective of

observations from space to understand the planet as a complex, coupled system

(involving the atmosphere, oceans, land and ice surfaces and the living biosphere), to

enable an improved stewardship of our environment with sustained human progress

through space observations, and the assessment and mitigation of the effects of natural

disasters. A more detailed discussion of the goals, research and applications themes, and

overarching science questions is included in Appendix A. These will form the basis of the

science/applications evaluation criteria. For further information on the Earth

science/applications research themes and questions may be obtained through the Internet

URL address http://www.earth.nasa.gov.

By 2003, NASA will have made significant advances in space observations of the Earth

system, launching eight missions in 1999 alone. Yet we will need continuing

measurements of specific components of the Earth system as well as new measurements

allowed by emerging technologies. We will conduct these measurements within a new

NASA paradigm for space-borne projects that emphasizes small, focused missions to test

hypotheses and address the scientific/applications themes. This new paradigm calls for a

balanced program of space observations, airborne and ground-based measurements and

modeling. Such a program will conceptually link and coordinate all aspects of the Earth

Science Enterprise.

2.2 University Earth System Science (UnESS) Project Objectives

The goal of the UnESS Project is to foster the development of the next generation of

Earth system scientists, engineers, managers, educators, and entrepreneurs through

significant and meaningful hands-on student involvement in Earth observation space

missions at the university level. For this UnESS AO, a student is defined as any
5

individual enrolled in an accredited university educational program with the documented

intention of obtaining a degree. This project gives equal weight to the

scientific/application and student involvement aspects. The scientific merit of the

mission can be intrinsic to the mission itself or based on the value of the technology to

future science/applications demonstrated through the mission. The student involvement

aspects of the project seeks to have a diverse group of students, including those

underrepresented in science and engineering fields, involved in hands-on experience with

Earth observation missions. This experience should include preparation of proposals

through analyzing and distributing the data to the scientific/applications community. The

UnESS Project encourages broad participation from multiple university schools (e.g.,

science, engineering, aerospace management, business, journalism, education, graphic

and fine art, law, communications). The Office of Earth Science encourages proposals

with meaningful participation of Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU),

Other Minority Universities (OMU) including Hispanic serving institutions and Tribal

colleges and universities.

3.0 University Earth System Science Project Requirements, Constraints, and

Guidelines

This section describes the requirements, constraints, and guidelines applicable to all

UnESS Project selections. Appendix B gives the general instructions and provisions that

will be applied to this AO. Specific directions for proposal preparation and submission

are included in Appendix C and Section 4.

3.1 General Project Requirements, Constraints and Guidelines

Overall UnESS mission responsibility is vested with the selected Principal Investigator

(PI) and team, with limited NASA oversight. The PI is responsible to NASA for the

scientific integrity of the mission, as well as the management of the complete mission,

including provision of the spacecraft, instrument, ground system, and arranging the

launch service. Investigators can be from universities, industry, nonprofit institutions,

NASA Centers, Federally Funded Research and Development Centers, other Government

agencies, or foreign organizations. Co-Investigators must have an identified role in the

proposal, play a defined and necessary role in the investigation, and covered in the

funding plan. Mission teams are encouraged to include minority students, and

investigations are encouraged to include Historically Black Colleges and Universities

(HBCU) and Other Minority Universities (OMU) as full participating team members.

The aerospace industry is encouraged to support participating universities by establishing

mission mentorship programs based on their expertise and by providing contributions to

the missions.

Investigations are capped at a maximum of $15 million in NASA Earth Science

Enterprise funding. This is a cap in funding, not a guide, and those proposals that are

proposed at the cap will not be able to adjust upward during the Concept Study. Outside

contributions to the mission are encouraged but are not required and there are no limits
6

on the extent of those contributions. Contributions can be of cash, property or services

on a no-exchange-of-NASA-funds basis. NASA civil service or NASA contractor

resources may not be contributed unless separately funded by a complementary effort.

However, see Section 3.12 for another funding option for HBCU/OMU participation.

Once an investigation has been selected for flight, failure to maintain reasonable progress

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

AO may be cause for its termination by NASA. Every aspect of a selected investigation

must reflect a commitment to mission success while keeping total costs as low as

possible. Consequently, investigations should be designed and planned to emphasize

mission success within cost and schedule constraints by incorporating sufficient margins,

reserves, and content resiliency. UnESS mission teams will not only be responsible for

the flight hardware but will also be responsible for initial analysis of the data including

calibration and validation, its subsequent delivery to an appropriate data repository, the

publication of scientific findings, and communication of results to the public. Only those

investigations for which proposed cost, schedule, and launch vehicle requirements do not

exceed the constraints and guidelines identified herein will be considered as candidates

for selection.

3.2 Mission Options

This AO solicits only end-to-end investigations, which begins with concept definition,

includes spaceflight hardware development, and ends with delivery of the data products

to the scientific community. A PI may propose one of two mission types. For the

complete flight mission the PI proposes a mission where the instrument is the primary

payload on the spacecraft and launch vehicle. The PI may also propose a partial mission

where the instrument is a secondary payload on another mission. In either case your

proposal must identify, describe and include the costs of instrument carriers, launch

vehicles, and services. Depending on the mission type several options exist for launch

services. These are described in Table 3.2-1 below.

Space Shuttle launch services and standard Shuttle and International Space Station (ISS)

Services will be provided by NASA as Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) and

services at no cost to the investigation and are not considered within the NASA Earth

Science Enterprise funding cap. If the proposed shuttle mission requires new hardware or

modifications to existing hardware those cost must be costed in the proposal. All safety

and integration cost must be included in the proposal. If PI proposes to obtain their own

instrument carrier and/or launch vehicle, the demonstrated reliability of the proposed

systems will be evaluated. Each proposal must identify the planned launch opportunity

and provide documentation that the launch service provider agrees to manifest the

mission.
7

Table 3.2-1 Launch Service Options.

Mission

Type

Science Instrument

Carrier

Launch

Vehicle

Launch

Service

Provider

Launch

Service

Cost

ELV Commercial If Contributed

NASA Not an Option

Shared ELV PI gets Must be Costed

NASA gets Must be Costed

Own FreeFlyer S/C

Space Shuttle NASA or PI gets $0*

Complete

Flight Mission

Instrument

Spartan Space Shuttle NASA or PI gets $0*

Space Station

(Attached

Payload or

Optical

Window)

Space Shuttle NASA $0*

Space Shuttle

(Cargo Bay)

Space Shuttle NASA $0*

Partial Mission Instrument

Somebody

else’s S/C

Provider’s

launch vehicle

Commercial,

Gov’t, Foreign

Must be Costed

*Not all integration costs are covered. See Section 3.2 for details.

Standard integration costs, as defined in the ISS UnESS Research Opportunities

document in the UnESS Project Library, are provided at no cost. Payload unique

integration costs and safety costs must be included in the proposal. The Shuttle carriers

for ISS payloads will be provided by the ISS program at no cost. The EXPRESS Pallet

launch opportunities are manifested for late 2003. The first opportunity to launch

payloads intended for the Window Observational Research Facility (WORF) will be in

late 2001.

3.3 International Participation

Recognizing the potential scientific, technical, and financial benefits offered to all

partners by international cooperation, participation by non-U.S. individuals and

organizations as team members in UnESS investigations is welcome. Participation may

include, but is not limited to, the contribution of scientific instruments, the spacecraft (or

a portion thereof), and the subsequent sharing of the data from the mission, all on a noexchange-of-NASA-funds basis. Carriers, launch vehicles and launch services, and space

operations may also be contributed by international partners and must be included in all

calculations and discussions of the Total Mission Cost which is defined in Appendix C.

Subject to the FAR provisions set forth in Appendix E, the direct purchase of goods

and/or services from non-U.S. sources is permitted except for the following restriction:

NASA is precluded from purchasing non-U.S. launch vehicles, nor may NASA funds

provided to a mission team be used to purchase a launch vehicle from a non-U.S. source.

The provision of launch services as a contribution to a UnESS mission by a non-U.S.

partner is acceptable only on a no-exchange-of-NASA-funds basis (i.e., at no cost to

NASA). Only those non-U.S. launch vehicles with demonstrated reliabilities may be

proposed for UnESS missions.
8

Proposers are advised that a contract or subcontract by a U.S. team with a non-U.S.

participant using funds derived from NASA must meet NASA and Federal regulations.

Proposers are further advised that these regulations will place an additional burden on

mission teams that should be explicitly included in discussions of the investigation's cost,

schedule, and risk management. Information regarding regulations governing the

procurement of foreign goods or services is provided in Appendix E.

Proposers for non-NASA, non-U.S. missions should recognize that all such proposals

must be consistent, and in compliance with, all U.S. Government laws, regulations, and

policies governing the export of hardware and/or technical data. Further, any such

successful proposal will require the appropriate agreement(s) and export license(s).

Therefore, all proposers for non-U.S. missions should contact the Earth Science Division,

Office of External Relations, at NASA Headquarters at the address in Section 4.3.1

during the preparation of the concept study to obtain information about U.S. Government

laws or policies (e.g., export control), as well as NASA policy and procedures regulating

international cooperation that may be relevant to the proposal.

Participation by non-U.S. individuals and/or institutions as team members or contributors

to UnESS investigations must be endorsed by the institutions and/or governments

involved. Institutional endorsement is required for contributions. If government support

is required then a government endorsement is also needed. The letter of endorsement

must provide evidence that the non-U.S. institution and/or government officials are aware

and supportive of the proposed investigation and will pursue funding for the investigation

if selected by NASA. Such endorsements must be submitted per the schedule in Section

1.3 and in compliance with the provisions of Sections 3.1 and 4.3.1.

4.0 Proposal Preparation and Submission

4.1 Preproposal Activities

4.1.1 University Earth System Science Project Library

The UnESS Project Library is a resource that was created to provide requirements and

background information on the UnESS project, including science/applications goals,

technology and education/outreach strategies, and background information on

management aspects of flight programs. Additional information on the UnESS Project

Library is contained in Appendix D.

4.1.2 T e c h n i c a l a n d S c i e n t i f i c I n q u i r i e s 

Inquiries of a technical nature should be directed to the UnESS Project Executive, at the

address below. Inquiries of a scientific nature should be directed to the UnESS Project

Scientist, at his address below. Inquiries are preferred in writing and may be sent via fax
9

or E-mail (preferred). The character string “UnESS-AO” (without quotes) should be

included in the subject line of all E-mail transmissions.

UnESS Announcement of Opportunity

Ref: AO-99-OES-02

University Earth System Science Support Office

Jorge Scientific Corporation

400 Virginia Avenue SW, Suite 700

Washington, DC 20024

Fax Number: 202-554-3024

E-mail: mdonnell@hq.nasa.gov

Phone: 202-544-2775

4.1.3 Preproposal Conference

A preproposal conference will be held in the Baltimore, MD/Washington, D.C. area on

September 10, 1999. When the details of the time and location of the preproposal

conference have been finalized, the information will be posted at URL

(http://uness.larc.nasa.gov/uness). Ms. Melissa Donnelly may also be contacted for

details on the conference:

Phone: 202-544-2775

Fax: 202-554-3024

E-mail: mdonnell@hq.nasa.gov

Attendees are to attend at their own expense and to make their own travel arrangements.

The purpose of this conference will be to address questions about the proposal process for

this AO. The preproposal conference will address all those questions received by NASA

on or before September 1, 1999. Questions should be addressed to the UnESS Project

Executive at the address given in Section 4.1.2. Additional questions submitted after this

date, including those provided in writing at the conference, may be addressed at the

conference only as time permits. Anonymity of the authors of questions will be honored

if requested. A University Earth System Science AO Preproposal Conference Transcript,

including answers to all questions addressed at the conference, will be prepared and

posted in the UnESS Library (http://uness.larc.nasa.gov/uness) approximately two weeks

after the conference. If you require a paper copy of the transcript please contact the

University Earth System Science Support Office at the address above.

4.1.4 Notice of Intent to Propose

To assist NASA's planning of the proposal evaluation process, a Notice of Intent (NOI)

should be submitted by all prospective proposers in accordance with the schedule in

Section 1.3. This Notice must be typewritten in English and may be submitted in one of

the following four ways:
10

By the Internet:

The form to submit an NOI can be found on the Internet at :

http://uness.larc.nasa.gov/uness (or)

http://bhuma.earth.nasa.gov/loi/form.cfm

Please follow the instructions carefully. The information will be submitted to a

secure database.

or by E-mail to:

<mdonnell@hq.nasa.gov>, with Subject designated as <UnESS NOI - (PI

Name)>

or by FAX to:

University Earth System Science Support Office

202-554-3024

or by mail to:

University Earth System Science Support Office

Jorge Scientific Corporation

400 Virginia Avenue SW, Suite 700

Washington, DC 20024

Acknowledgment of receipt of Notices of Intent (NOIs) will be made within two weeks

of the due date for NOIs. To the extent the following information is known, the Notice of

Intent should include:

(a) Names, addresses, telephone numbers, E-mail addresses, and fax numbers (1) of

the Principal Investigator; (2) any Co-Investigators; and (3) the lead

representative from each organization (industrial, academic, educational, not-forprofit, Federal, and/or Foreign) expected to be included in the proposal team;

(b) Title of the proposed investigation, a brief statement of the scientific/applications

and student involvement objectives, and the primary NASA science/applications

theme and question (see Section 1.1 and Appendix A) that the investigation

supports whether complete or partial mission;

(c) Spacecraft (state if own) and launch vehicle to be proposed;

(d) Identification of any new technologies that may be employed as part of the

mission; and

(e) A brief statement describing the education/public outreach objectives in the

proposed investigation.

Material in a NOI is for NASA planning purposes only, is confidential, and is not binding

on the submitter.

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
11

potential proposers of their services and/or products. At the option of the submitters of

an NOI, NASA Office of Earth Science is willing to offer this service with the

understanding that the Agency takes no responsibility for the use of such information.

Therefore, all those submitting an NOI in response to this AO are requested to include the

appropriately edited form of the following (note: this is also included in the format of the

NOI for those submitting electronically via the World Wide Web):

By submitting this Notice of Intent to propose, I hereby do/do not

authorize NASA to post my name and institutional address (but not the

name of my intended proposal) as an addendum to this AO on the World

Wide Web. If I do authorize such a posting, I understand that such

information will be in the public domain, and I will not hold NASA

responsible for any use made by others for revealing this information.

4.2 Format and Content of Proposals

General NASA guidance for proposals in general is given in Appendix B. A uniform

proposal format is required from all proposers to aid in proposal evaluation. The required

proposal format and contents are summarized in Appendix C. Failure to follow this

outline may result in reduced ratings during the evaluation process, or in extreme cases,

could lead to rejection of the proposal without review.

4.3 Submission Information

4.3.1 Endorsements

The proposal must be signed by an official of the Principal Investigator's institution

authorized to certify institutional support and sponsorship of the investigation, and the

management and the financial parts of the proposal.

The original copy of all proposals shall include a letter of endorsement from all

organizations offering goods and/or services on a no-exchange-of-NASA-funds basis,

NASA Centers, other government agencies, non-U.S. organizations providing hardware

or software to the investigation, the major participants in the proposal, and the launch

service provider if the launch service is not provided through NASA. Letters of

endorsement should be signed by institutional or Government officials authorized to

commit their organizations to participation in the proposed investigation. These officials

must certify institutional support and sponsorship of the investigation, as well as

concurrence in the management and financial parts of the proposal. Non-U.S.

organizations must also submit such endorsements to Ms. DeVon Carroll at the address

below with a copy to the University Earth System Science Support Office at the

addresses given in Section 4.1 by the due date given in the schedule in Section 1.3.
12

Ms. DeVon Carroll

Earth Science Division

Code IY

Ref: University Earth System Science (UnESS) AO 1999

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Washington, DC 20546-0001

USA

Phone: 202-358-0793

FAX: 202-358-2798

4.3.2 Electronic Version of Proposal

Include with your proposal diskettes containing electronics version of your proposal,

along with a brief description of the contents of the diskettes, as described in Appendix

C. The diskettes will be used primarily to assist evaluators with searches for information

within the proposal. The actual evaluation will be performed utilizing the paper version

as submitted.

4.3.3 Quantity

Proposers must provide thirty (30) copies of their proposal, plus the original signed

proposal, and three copies of the diskettes and diskette content description, on or before

the proposal deadline given in Section 1.3.

4.3.4 Submittal Address

All proposals must be received by 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on the day in the

schedule in Section 1.3, at the following address:

University Earth System Science 1999 Support Office

Jorge Scientific Corporation

400 Virginia Avenue SW, Suite 700

Washington, DC 20024

Point of contact for commercial delivery: Ms. Melissa Donnelly; phone: 202-554-2775

Furthermore, one copy of any proposal that includes any non-U.S. participants and/or

institutional and governmental commitments must be sent to Ms. DeVon Carroll at the

address listed in Section 4.3.1.

4.3.5 Deadline

All proposals must be received at the address above by the closing date specified in

Section 1.3. All proposals received after the closing date will be treated in accordance

with NASA's provisions for late proposals (Appendix B, Section VII).
13

4.3.6 N o t i f i c a t i o n o f R e c e i p t 

NASA will notify the proposers in writing that their proposals have been received.

Proposers not receiving this confirmation within two weeks after submittal of their

proposals should contact the UnESS Project Executive at the address given in Section

4.1.2.

5.0 Proposal Evaluation, Selection, Debriefing, and Implementation

5.1 Evaluation and Selection Processes

NASA will subject all proposals submitted in response to this AO to a Concept Study

Selection Process. Those proposals selected for Concept Study funding will also undergo

a Downselect Process at the completion of the studies. NASA will apply these processes

and the evaluation criteria to all aspects of the proposal, regardless of the funding source.

NASA will evaluate how well the proposal satisfies the requirements of this AO, even for

those aspects of the mission contributed by mission partners other than NASA.

5.1.1 Concept Study Selection Process

NASA will initiate the Concept Study Selection Process with a preliminary screening.

Proposals that, during the preliminary screening, NASA finds not in compliance with the

requirements, constraints, and guidelines of the AO will be returned to the proposer

without further review. A debriefing can be requested according to the guidelines in

Section 5.5.

Proposals that pass the preliminary screening will be assessed in the Concept Study

Selection Process against the criteria given in Sections 5.2.1 through 5.2.6 by two panels

of individuals who are peers of the proposers and/or their mentors (we are not currently

planning to use student evaluators for this AO). The Science/Applications and Student

Involvement Panel and sub-panels will evaluate the proposals based upon the criteria in

sections 5.2.1 and 5.2.2. The Technical, Management, Cost and Other Opportunities

(TMCO) Panel and sub-panels will evaluate the proposals based upon the criteria in

sections 5.2.3 through 5.2.6. These panels and sub-panels will be instructed to evaluate

all proposals independently and not to compare larger missions with smaller ones. The

panels may be augmented through the solicitation of mail-in reviews, which the panels

have the right to accept, modify, or reject. Proposers should be aware that during the

evaluation and selection process, NASA might request clarification of a specific point or

points in a proposal. Such a request and the proposer’s response shall be in writing.

Once the Science/Applications and Student Involvement Panel evaluation and the TMCO

Panel evaluation are complete, a UnESS Evaluation Executive Committee will convene

to consider the peer review results from the two Panels. This committee will be chaired

by the UnESS Project Executive and includes the UnESS Project Scientist as co-chair,

the TMCO chair, an Education representative and other civil servants chosen by the

committee chair. Once consensus is determined, the committee will categorize the
14

proposals in accordance with procedures required by NASA FAR Supplement Part

1872.0. These Categories are defined below. Note that NASA anticipates selecting and

funding only Category I investigations.

• Category I. Well conceived and scientifically, technically, educationally sound

investigation pertinent to the goals of the program and the AO’s objectives and

offered by a competent investigator from an institution capable of supplying the

necessary 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, technically, or educationally

sound investigations which are recommended for acceptance, but at a lower

priority than Category I.

• Category III. Scientifically, technically, or educationally sound investigations

which require further development.

• Category IV. Proposed investigations that are recommended for rejection for the

particular opportunity under consideration, whatever the reason.

The UnESS Evaluation Executive Committee will also conduct an independent

assessment of the evaluation and categorization processes regarding both, their

compliance to established policies and practices, as well as their completeness, selfconsistency, and adequacy of all materials related thereto. After this review, the final

evaluation and categorization results will be reviewed with the Office of Earth Science

Division Directors for comments and recommendations and then forwarded to the

Associate Administrator for Earth Science who will make the final selections. Nominally

six proposals will be selected for nine-month concept studies.

The Office of Equal Opportunity Programs will then conduct an independent and separate

evaluation of the selected proposals for significant and meaningful participation by

Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Other Minority Universities

(HBCUs/OMUs) for additional direct funding to the HBCUs/OMUs. This evaluation

will use the criterion in Section 5.2.7, and not influence the concept study selections.

Selected proposers will be notified by phone and then by letter and provided with

instructions for initiating their concept study. Proposers not selected will be notified by

letter and will be offered a debriefing (see Section 5.5).

The selected proposers will conduct nine-month concept studies, culminating in the

Concept Study Reports, which will be used as the basis for the Downselect Process.

5.1.2 Downselect Process

Once the nine-month concept studies are complete and the Principal Investigators have

submitted their Concept Study Reports, NASA will conduct a Downselect Process to
15

select two or more mission for flight, subject to the available funding and the cost of the

selected missions.

NASA will initiate the Downselect Process with a preliminary screening. Concept Study

Reports that, during the preliminary screening, NASA finds not in compliance with the

requirements, constraints, and guidelines of the AO and the Concept Study Report

Guidelines will be returned to the proposer without further review. The final NASA

Earth Science Enterprise estimated cost in the Concept Study Report cannot exceed the

initial, proposed NASA Earth Science Enterprise estimated cost by more than 20 percent

or the funding cap, whichever is less. Missions will not be considered in the Downselect

Process unless the Concept Study Report has been submitted on time. Information

concerning the format and content of the Concept Study Report can be obtained from the

Office of Earth Science Guidelines for Concept Study Report Preparation in the UnESS

Library at http://uness.larc.nasa.gov/uness.

NASA will conduct the Downselect evaluations according to the same evaluation criteria

used in the Concept Study Selection Process described in Sections 5.2.1 through 5.2.6.

However, this review will reflect the greater level of detail and design maturity enabled

by the increased page count, elapsed time, and Concept Study support. This in-depth

downselect review will evaluate the implementing details of the selected investigations,

including the following:

• Any modifications to the student involvement and scientific/applications

objectives,

• Design details of the experiment hardware,

• Plans for mission implementation including technical and management factors,

• Plans for new technology (as appropriate) and its risk mitigation plan,

• Subcontracting approach plan, when appropriate, and

• Plans for participation of HBCU/OMU and Small Disadvantaged Business,

commercialization and education and public outreach including students and

faculty of HBCU/OMU.

The Concept Study Report will be used to determine the investigation’s readiness to

proceed. The investigation must demonstrate satisfactory technical, cost and schedule

performance, as well as the capability to achieve the originally proposed student

involvement and scientific objectives. The Downselect Process will select two or more

missions for mission definition. Pending a Mission Confirmation Review, these selected

missions can proceed to mission development and flight.

Following downselection, the Principal Investigators of the investigations selected for

flight implementation will be notified by telephone, followed by formal written

notification. The formal notification will include any issues noted during the evaluation

that may require resolution and any special instructions for the concept study. A Project

Initiation Conference will be held as soon as possible after selection to clarify

requirements and responsibilities of all parties having roles in the mission, including

launch service personnel. Proposers of investigations that were not selected will be
16

notified in writing and offered a debriefing by phone or in person. Results of this

downselect review and a decision to proceed (or not) will be provided within 30 days of

the review.

5.2 Evaluation Criteria

The evaluation criteria listed below will be used to evaluate proposals as described in

Section 5.1. All proposals deemed to be compliant would be evaluated and categorized

against these criteria. In addition, these criteria will also be used in the Downselect

Process. The six criteria cover:

• The Scientific/Applications merit

• The degree of Student Involvement

• The Technical Implementation plan

• The Management plan

• The Cost and Cost Realism

• The Other Opportunity plan

The scientific/applications merit and student involvement evaluation criteria will be

evaluated giving equal weight. The technical implementation, management

implementation, and cost and cost realism criteria are risk factors, of equal weight, and

are of secondary importance to the first two criteria. The other opportunity criterion is of

lesser importance to all other criteria. After selection, for those proposals that request

Office of Equal Opportunity Programs funding during the concept study phase, the Office

of Equal Opportunity Programs will conduct an independent and separate evaluation of

the selected proposals using the following evaluation criterion. This funding is only

available for use during the concept studies and, therefore, this criterion will not be not be

used during the Downselect Process.

• The degree to which the proposal meets the requirements of increasing the

capabilities of HBCUs/OMUs to participate in Earth science/applications

missions.

The science and applications, student involvement, other opportunities, and Office of

Equal Opportunity Programs criteria are measurements of quality and NASA will assign

adjectival ratings as shown in Table 5.2-1. The technical implementation, management,

and cost criteria are measures of implementation feasibility and NASA will assign risk

ratings as shown in Table 5.2-2. For these latter criteria, a factor can outweigh all others

if it jeopardizes overall mission success.
17

Table 5.2-1 Adjectival Ratings for Science/Application, Student Involvement and

Other Opportunity Merit.

Adjective Definition

Excellent A comprehensive and thorough proposal of exceptional merit.

One or more major strengths.

No major weaknesses or only minor correctable weaknesses.

Very Good Demonstrates overall competence.

One or more major strengths and strengths out balance any weaknesses.

Any major weaknesses are correctable.

Good Reasonable sound response.

There may be strengths or weaknesses, or both.

As a whole, weaknesses, not offset by strengths, do not significantly

detract from the offeror's response.

Major weaknesses are probably correctable.

Fair One or more weaknesses.

Weaknesses have been found that out balance strengths.

Major weaknesses can probably be improved, minimized, or corrected.

Poor One or more major weaknesses which are expected to be difficult to

correct, or are not correctable.

5.2.1 Scientific/Applications Criterion

NASA will use the following to evaluate the Science/Applications Criterion.

• The overall scientific and/or applications merit of the proposed investigation,

as measured by

− The scientific or applications objectives and justification of the proposed

investigation. The scientific or applications justification can be based

upon the results expected from the mission as proposed, or based on the

potential for future results based upon the technology or technique

demonstrated by the proposed mission. Proposals whose justification is

based upon a future capability must include a plan or “roadmap”

describing how the demonstration will lead to the full mission including

likely funding sources for the full mission (i.e., commercial, current or

planned NASA programs, etc.). NASA will assess the likelihood that the

flight demonstration will lead to a successful full mission.

− The coherence of the traceability from the proposed objectives to the

measurements required to the instrument functional requirements and the

instrument/mission engineering requirements.

− The scientific resilience of the investigation, as reflected by the

assessment of proposed descope options and the sensitivity to and

likelihood of reduced performance or shortened mission life.
18

Table 5.2-2 Risk Ratings for Technical Implementation, Management, and Cost

Adjective Definition

Low Risk No major weaknesses. No problems that can’t normally be overcome

within proposed resources. Problems not of sufficient magnitude to

make us uncomfortable about the ability of investigation to be

implemented within its envelope.

Medium

Risk

Reasonably sound response. There may be strengths or weaknesses or

both. As a whole, weaknesses that are not offset by strengths do not

significantly detract from the offeror’s response. Major weaknesses are

correctable.

Examples:

• Problems are not so significant that the team can’t overcome them

with good management (as proposed) and application of

engineering resources; or

• Although technology is not sufficiently ready, there is reasonable

probability that the investigation can be implemented within

proposed cost and schedule; or

• Complexity is inherently risky but not too risky; or

• Resources are very tight but doable (envelope tight).

High Risk Major weaknesses are not correctable within proposed resources.

Expect failure; the investigation does not have sufficient envelope.

• The relevance of the proposed investigation to the Earth Science Enterprise

and its science and application priorities and the goals and objectives of the

UnESS project.

• The uniqueness and innovation of the proposed investigation. This will

include the relationship between the proposed investigation and other

approved Earth Science missions including NASA, other government,

international, and commercial missions. Missions that duplicate other

capabilities must justify this duplication showing that they:

− demonstrate an innovative approach to replace the planned capability

− complement or extend the planned capability

• The feasibility of the proposed investigation, including maturity of the

underpinning research, the feasibility and risk of achieving objectives based

on the proposed instrumentation and technical implementation, the risk that

the investigation will not meet the objectives as proposed. For the initial

selection, this will include an assessment that the major science/applications

issues will be resolved by completion of the Concept Study. For the

downselect the Mission Confirmation Review, this will include an assessment

that the major science/applications issues will be resolved by completion of

the Mission Confirmation Review. Note: NASA will assess the capability of

the proposed measurement to achieve the objectives under the Science and

Applications criterion, and will assess the capability of the proposed
19

instrument to achieve the proposed measurement under the Technical

Implementation criterion.

• The expertise and experience of the senior members and mentors for the

science and applications team in relation to the proposed science or

applications objectives.

• The adequacy of the correlation measurements and validation activities

• The adequacy of the data processing and distribution plan, including analysis,

archiving, and dissemination of data and results.

• Compliance with the guidelines and requirements of the AO (for initial

proposal) and Concept Study (for downselect).

• Adequacy and likelihood of success of plans to resolve outstanding science or

applications issues by the completion of the Concept Study (for initial

selection only) and/or the Mission Confirmation Review.

5.2.2 Student Involvement Criterion

NASA will use the following to evaluate the Student Involvement criterion.

• Extent of hands-on involvement in all phases of the mission by a diverse

group of students, including those underrepresented in science and

engineering fields, in certified degree programs at the undergraduate and

graduate level.

− Breadth of student involvement, such as:

− science students

− engineering students

− other academic disciplines, such as business, journalism and

communications, graphic/fine art, education, law, etc.

− Plans to attract and involve under represented minority students

• Educational and academic impact of student involvement, including any

innovative features that will extend the impact beyond the immediate mission

team.

• Quality, scope, and realism of the proposed student involvement, including

oversight and mentoring plans, capability and commitment of mentors

• Compliance with the guidance and requirements of the AO (for the initial

proposal) and the Concept Study Guidelines (for the downselect).

• Adequacy and likelihood of success of plans to resolve outstanding student

involvement issues by the completion of the Concept Study (for initial

selection only) and/or the Mission Confirmation Review.

5.2.3 Technical Implementation Criterion

NASA will use the following to evaluate the Technical Implementation criterion.

• Mission design, including adequacy, achievability, completeness, and

traceability to high level objectives and constraints both.
20

• Spacecraft hardware and flight software including reliability, risk technical

maturity, development schedule, performance margins, spacecraft maturity

matrix.

• Instrumentation: Note: NASA will assess the capability of the proposed

measurement to achieve the objectives under the science and applications

criterion, and will assess the capability of the proposed instrument to achieve

the proposed measurement under the technical implementation criterion.

• Instrument Interface and Payload Integration: including definition, clarity, and

simplicity of interfaces and the consistency between the requirements and

constraints of the spacecraft and the instrument.

• Launch vehicle: reliability, compliance with NASA policy

• Manufacturing, Integration, and Test; including schedule, facilities, test

planning (Hardware, software, environmental, lifetime) or adequacy of design

if testing not proposed, integration to the launch vehicle.

• Ground and data systems including adequacy and completeness of proposed

approach, software development, data processing approach, testing, use of

appropriate standards, and spectrum allocation requirements and approach.

• Mission Operations; including adequacy and completeness of approach,

facility requirements (new or existing), security and redundancy.

• Compliance with the guidance and requirements of the AO (for the initial

proposal) and the Concept Study Guidelines (for the downselect).

• Adequacy and likelihood of success of plans to resolve outstanding technical

implementation issues by the completion of the Concept Study (for initial

selection) and/or by the Mission Confirmation Review.

5.2.4 Management Criterion

NASA will use the following to evaluate the Management criterion.

• Management processes and plans, schedules and procurement strategy,

including:

− Decision making process

− Internal reviews and control

− External reviews, NASA audits and insight.

− Schedule and work flow

− Procurement strategy, plan, major subcontracts, and agreements

− System Engineering

− Document Tree

• Team organization and structure, including:

− Clarity of proposed roles and responsibilities

− Clarity of lines of authority

− Commitment of key personnel, including principal investigator, project

manager and systems engineer, their institution, and their mentors (if

students).

− Experience of key personnel and their mentors as appropriate

− Documented Agreements and signatures for key mission elements
21

− Plans for physical accommodations (co-location of team, etc.)

• Cost and Risk Management Plan, including insight and control of:

− Schedule margins (funded)

− Performance margins

− Budget reserves

− Descope options (including decision dates and resource savings)

− Identification of risks, and risk mitigation strategies

− Linkage between level of risk and all overall margins and reserves as a

function of schedule or mission development phase.

− Cost management and tracking (expected vs. actual, etc.)

• Mission Assurance and Safety, including:

− Compatibility with ISO 9000 or industry best practices

− Problem/failure reporting system

− Inspection and quality control plans

− System level verification (ground and/or space)

− System safety assurance

− Software validation

− Parts selection and control

− Reliability analysis and identification of failure modes and single point

failures

− Management of the cost of quality

• Facilities and Equipment, including:

− Identification of major facilities and equipment required (both existing and

new)

− Commitment that major facilities and equipment will be available within

schedule and budget

• Compliance with the guidance and requirements of the AO (for the initial

proposal) and the Concept Study Guidelines (for the downselect).

• Adequacy and likelihood of success of plans to resolve outstanding

management implementation issues by the completion of the Concept Study

(for initial selection) and/or by the Mission Confirmation Review.

5.2.5 Cost and Cost Realism Criterion

NASA will use the following to evaluate the Cost and Cost Realism criterion.

• Cost Validity, including:

− Basis, heritage and quality of proposal cost estimates, particularly for the

spacecraft (if appropriate) and instrument(s)

− Realism of the proposed budget

− Clarity and completeness of the proposed work breakdown structure

(WBS)

− Cost estimating methodology

− Cost Risk, including:

− Adequacy of proposed Reserves

− Understanding of required resources and risks demonstrated in proposal
22

− Linkage between technical and schedule risks, reserves (performance,

budget, and schedule), and descope options

− Past cost performance of major partners (if appropriate)

• Total Cost to the Earth Science Enterprise

• Compliance with the guidance and requirements of the AO (for the initial

proposal) and the Concept Study Guidelines (for the downselect).

• Adequacy and likelihood of success of plans to resolve outstanding cost and

cost realism issues by the completion of the Concept Study (for initial

selection) and/or by the Mission Confirmation Review.

5.2.6 Other Opportunity Criterion

NASA will use the following to evaluate the Other Opportunity criterion. NASA

recognizes that the low cost of the investigations solicited by this AO may not allow the

proposed investigation to address all of these.

• Educational outreach (over and above student involvement in the mission)

- Plans for hands-on involvement of other students in the - (high school,

non-degree, etc.)

- Impact on Formal Education System

> Teacher Workshops

> Science missions

− Impact on minority student education

> Increased performance in foundational mathematics, science and

technology courses, such as algebra, biology, geography,

introduction to computing

> Increased enrollment in advanced mathematics, science and

technology courses, such as calculus, physics, chemistry, computer

programming, and computer information systems

> Increased enrollment in college and university NASA-related

degree programs

− Plans for measuring and evaluating the above impacts

• Public outreach

- Plans to enhance public understanding of Earth science/applications

activities

- Innovation of the public outreach approach, and its potential to excite

and involve the public

- Plans for measuring and evaluating the above impacts

• Plans for significant participation (the NASA Agency-wide goal is 8%

participation) in the mission team by:

- Historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs) and other

minority universities (OMUs)

- Small businesses small disadvantaged businesses, and women-owned

small businesses

• Commercial opportunities:

- Identification and consideration of commercialization opportunities
23

- Realism and viability of commercialization plans

5.2.7 Office of Equal Opportunity Programs Minority University Research and

Education Programs Funding Evaluation Criterion

If Office of Equal Opportunity Programs funding is requested, the Office of Equal

Opportunity Programs Minority University Research and Education Programs Funding

section will be evaluated for significant and meaningful participation by Historically

Black Colleges and Universities and Other Minority Universities (HBCUs/OMUs). The

plans for participation of HBCUs and OMUs described in the proposal will be evaluated

by their quality and credibility and the degree to which they propose to augment their

capacity to participate in Earth science/applications missions and carry out more

significant roles and responsibilities. HBCUs/OMUs participation will also be evaluated

on the extent to which the HBCU/OMU participation is integral to the mission and is

based on the capability and relevant expertise of the HBCUs and/or OMUs involved.

The items proposed under the Office of Equal Opportunity Programs funding would be

evaluated on the extent that they are genuinely investments (as opposed to ordinary

mission expenses), and that they provide long-term benefit to the HBCU/OMU.

The specific evaluation criteria against which a proposed activity will be judged are:

• The degree to which the proposed effort contributes to an effective, longduration partnership that leads to an increase in the training of, involvement

in, and broad understanding of Earth science/applications missions by students

underrepresented in Science, Mathematics, Engineering and Technology.

• The quality, scope, and realism of the proposed effort to benefit the continued

involvment of HBCUs and OMUs in earth science missions.

• The adequacy of plans for evaluating the effectiveness and impact of the

proposed activity and the capability and commitment of the proposer to carry

out the proposed program.

• The adequacy and realism of the proposed cost.

The Office of Equal Opportunity Programs will evaluate this section. The funding

request shall not exceed $100,000 and shall be reported in this section and not included in

the proposal cost section. This detailed funding request should be broken down to a level

that will give evaluators sufficient information to determine the appropriateness of the

request. These are additional funds that are separate and apart from the maximum

$300,000 awards for concept studies and are not included in the funding limits. See

Appendix C, Section K for more information.

5.3 Concept Study Selection Considerations

As described in Section 5.1 and 5.2, NASA will consider the results of the proposal

evaluations, based on all the criteria described above, and the categorizations of the

proposals, in the final Concept Study selection process. The scientific/applications merit

and student involvement evaluation criteria will be evaluated giving equal weight. The
24

technical implementation, management implementation, and cost and cost realism criteria

are of equal weight and are of secondary importance to the first two criteria. However,

these three criteria are measures of implementation feasibility (risk), and the TMCO

panel can recommend against selection of any proposal that fails to meet a minimum

threshold. The other opportunity criterion is of lesser importance to all other criteria. In

addition, the Selection Official will consider the total proposed Earth Science Enterprise

Cost and programmatic issues in the final selections.

Proposers to this AO should recognize that the program of the Office of Earth Science is

an evolving activity that critically depends upon U.S. Government policies and budgets,

as well as Earth Science/applications objectives and priorities, any of which may change

quickly with time. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the Associate Administrator of the

Office of Earth Science to use all relevant science/applications planning, policy, and cost

considerations when making selection(s) among top ranked proposals submitted in

response to this AO. In addition, proposers to this AO are advised that it is an objective,

but not a requirement that the final selections reflect a balance among the applicable

scientific/applications research themes listed in Section 1.1 of this AO.

The overriding consideration for the final selection of proposals submitted in response to

this AO will be to maximize scientific and educational return within the available budget.

Depending on the availability of proposals of appropriate merit, NASA expects to select

six investigations for 9-month Concept Studies. Each selected proposal will receive a

maximum of $300,000 for the 9-month studies.

5.4 Downselect Considerations

As described in Section 5.1 and 5.2, NASA will consider the results of the Concept Study

Report evaluations based on all the criteria described above in the final Downselect

Process. The scientific/applications merit and student involvement evaluation criteria

will be evaluated giving equal weight. The technical implementation, management

implementation, and cost and cost realism criteria are of equal weight and are of

secondary importance to the first two criteria. However, these three criteria are measures

of implementation feasibility, and the TMCO panel can recommend against selection of

any proposal that fails to meet a minimum threshold. The other opportunity criterion is

of lesser importance to all other criteria. In addition, the Selection Official will consider

the total proposed NASA Earth Science Enterprise cost and programmatic issues in the

final selections.

Proposers to this AO should recognize that the program of the Office of Earth Science is

an evolving activity that critically depends upon U.S. Government policies and budgets,

as well as Earth Science/applications objectives and priorities, any of which may change

quickly with time. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the Associate Administrator of the

Office of Earth Science to use all relevant science/applications planning, policy, and cost

considerations when making selection(s) among top ranked proposals submitted in

response to this AO. In addition, proposers to this AO are advised that it is an objective,
25

but not a requirement that the final selections reflect a balance among the applicable

scientific/applications research themes listed in Section 1.1 of this AO.

The overriding consideration for the final selection of proposals submitted in response to

this AO will be to maximize scientific and educational return within the available budget.

Depending on the availability of proposals of appropriate merit, NASA expects to select

two investigations for flight implementation. The number of proposals selected during

the downselect is dependent on the cost of the missions. For this reason proposals

significantly under the NASA Earth Science Enterprise funding cap of $15 million for the

proposed investigation are strongly encouraged.

5.5 Debriefings

Debriefings will be held at each of the major decision/selection points. NASA hopes and

believes that the proposal preparation experience, followed by a thorough debriefing by

the evaluation team will, of itself, offer educational benefit to the proposing teams.

Depending upon the number of debriefings requested, these debriefings may be by mail,

telephone, video conference, or conducted in person at NASA Headquarters. NASA

recommends that representatives from all participating proposal disciplines participate in

the debriefing. NASA has no funds to defray travel costs by the unsuccessful proposal

teams for the debriefing. A downselect debriefing will be available at the end of the

Downselect Process. Once again NASA recommends all disciplines be represented.

5.6 Award Administration, Management, and Funding

The NASA Headquarters Office of Earth Science shall provide the overall direction,

funding and advocacy necessary to keep the UnESS Project a vital part of the Office of

Earth Science program. NASA Headquarters Associate Administrator for Office of Earth

Science shall make the initial investigation selections and the final downselections. Once

the investigations are selected, the Earth Probes-G Program Office is the principal office

responsible for management oversight of the UnESS Project including advance planning

in support of program activities. Upon initial AO selection, an appropriate NASA center

or institution will be assigned to the mission to serve as a science/technical NASA pointof-contact. This NASA center or institution should have scientific and technical

expertise to support the mission if needed. The NASA point-of-contact will report

through the Flight Facility University Class Project Office who will be responsible to the

Earth Probes-G Program Office. The Earth Probes-G Program Office reports to the

Office of Earth Science at NASA headquarters. This arrangement will continue for those

missions selected to proceed after the Downselect Process.

At the end of the downselect process, the PI is committed to cost, schedule, and scientific

performance. Failure to maintain progress on an agreed to schedule or failure to operate

within mission constraints, guidelines or requirements may result in termination.

Different mission management approaches and organizational arrangements of the

selected proposals may require different award mechanisms. For contracts, cost type
26

contracts with incentives should be considered, particularly where performance

incentives are measured based on delivery of calibrated/validated science/applications

data products. Selections may result in a contract award with options. However, NASA

is not obligated to exercise any option. NASA may request presentations and/or site

visits to review the progress of the investigation prior to exercising options.

6.0 Conclusion

The NASA Office of Earth Science announces the opportunity to conduct innovative

space-borne Earth system observation investigations through the University Earth System

Science Project. This Announcement of Opportunity is intended to foster the

development of the next generation of Earth system scientists, engineers, managers,

educators, and entrepreneurs through significant and meaningful hands-on student

involvement in Earth observation space missions at the university level. This AO will

give equal merit to the scientific/applications and student involvement aspects of the

proposal. NASA invites both the U.S. and international scientific communities to

participate in proposals for University Earth System Science investigations to be carried

out as a result of this Announcement.

____________________

Dr. Ghassem Asrar

Associate Administrator

Office of Earth Science
A-1

A P P E N D I X A 

T H E E A R T H S C I E N C E E N T E R P R I S E E A R T H S C I E N C E 

R E S E A R C H A N D A P P L I C A T I O N S T H E M E S 

The goals of the Earth Science Enterprise are to use the global perspective of

observations from space to develop an understanding of the total Earth system and the

effects of natural and human-induced changes on the global environment.

The program of the Enterprise will be guided by the following scientific themes:

• Biology and Biogeochemistry of Ecosystems and the Global Carbon Cycle

• The Global Water and Energy Cycle

• Climate Variability and Prediction

• Atmospheric Chemistry

• Solid Earth Science

In addition, the Enterprises fosters applications research and commercial developments

aimed at more pragmatic issues including:

• Food and Fiber

• Natural Resources

• Disaster Management

• Environmental Quality

• Urban and Infrastructure

• Human Health and Safety

These themes are discussed in the sections below.

EARTH SCIENCE RESEARCH THEMES

1. BIOLOGY AND BIOGEOCHEMISTRY OF ECOSYSTEMS AND THE

GLOBAL CARBON CYCLE

Earth’s ecosystems are being subjected to human intervention and environmental changes

on an unprecedented scale, in both rate and geographical extent. The ability of human

societies to ameliorate, adapt to, or benefit from these rapid changes requires fundamental

knowledge of the responses of terrestrial and marine ecosystems to global change. Also

required is an understanding of the implications of changes in natural and managed

ecosystems for increased food production, sustainable resource management, and the

maintenance of a healthy, productive environment. As human societies seek to develop

policies that respond to the impacts of global change, there will be a continuing

requirement for objective, scientific information to understand the current impacts and

predict the future effects of such policies. Presently there is an urgent need for
A-2

information on the sources and sinks of carbon dioxide in the environment and on the

capacity of terrestrial and marine ecosystems to store carbon dioxide released to the

atmosphere as a result of human activities.

NASA research on the biology and biogeochemistry of ecosystems and the global carbon

cycle seeks to use remote sensing and related technologies to understand and predict how

terrestrial and marine ecosystems are changing. This research theme addresses

ecosystems as they are affected by human activity, as they change due to their own

intrinsic biological dynamics, and as they respond to climatic variations and, in turn,

affect climate. Emphasis is on understanding the processes and patterns of the Earth

system that affect its capacity for biological productivity and the role of the Earth’s

biosphere in Earth system function. Documenting changes in land cover and land use is a

priority. Understanding the distribution and cycling of carbon among land, ocean, and

atmospheric reservoirs constitutes a major scientific focus for research as well as a new

priority for interagency cooperation and international assessment. Questions that will

drive this research include:

• How do ecosystems respond to and affect global environmental change?

• How are land cover and land use changing? What are the causes and

consequences?

• What is the role of ecosystems in the global carbon cycle and how might it

change in the future?

2. GLOBAL WATER AND ENERGY CYCLE

The recycling of water in the Earth atmosphere is the process that effects the renewal of

fresh water on the planet, a unique feature in the solar system. The National Research

Council report on Research Pathways for the Next Decade – Overview (NRC, 1998a)

highlights the study of the global water cycle as one of the principal cross-cutting

research themes that emerged from their review of the US Global Change Research

Program: "Water is at the heart of both the causes and the effects of climate change. It is

essential to establish rates of and possible changes in precipitation, evapotranspiration,

and cloud water content. Better measurements are needed of water runoff, river flow and

the quantities of water involved in various human uses." Indeed, any significant change

in the global hydrologic regime could entail serious consequences in regions where water

resources are already strained by the ever-increasing needs of human population,

agriculture and industry.

In addition, the release of latent heat associated with precipitation is the principal source

of energy that drive the atmospheric circulation and weather systems. Quantifying the

global water cycle cannot be dissociated from the study of energy sources, sinks and

transformations in atmospheric dynamics. Both water cycle and energy exchange

processes are intimately linked to weather systems that evolve over periods of hours or

days, and horizontal scales of 10-100 kilometers. Scientific progress in this domain is

dependent upon the capability to observe these phenomena with appropriately high

spatial and temporal resolution, handle the resulting large data flow.
A-3

A decade of planning and technology development has enabled NASA to embrace the

spatial diversity and temporal variability of atmospheric phenomena, and address the

basic connection between weather and climate (Chapter 2 of the EOS Science Plan:

Radiation, Cloud, Water Vapor, Precipitation and Atmospheric Circulation; NASA,

1999). New space-based observing techniques, such as demonstrated by the Tropical

Rain Measuring Mission and forthcoming EOS missions, will provide much enhanced

knowledge of land vegetation and its role in evapotranspiration, cloud distribution and

their role in the planetary radiation balance, precipitation and the role of latent heat in the

development of weather systems. Field campaigns, conducted in environmentally

sensitive regions such as the Amazonian rain forest and major watersheds like the

Mississippi river basin, collect coordinated in situ and satellite measurements, and

assemble reference data bases that will serve to constrain and test model computations for

many years to come. Coupled atmospheric-hydrologic models are reaching the stage

where they will be a powerful tool for environmental assessments and experimental

hydrologic predictions.

This research theme emphasizes the concept of planetary-scale hydrology and climate

linkages, introduced in National Research Council strategic planning studies such as

Hydrologic Sciences- Taking Stock and Looking Ahead (NRC, 1998b). It builds upon the

framework of the Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment (GEWEX) in the World

Climate Research Program, and the Biospheric Aspects of the Hydrological Cycle

(BAHC) core-project in the International Geosphere-Biosphere Program. The goal of

NASA is to lead a cooperative research effort, together with partner agencies in the US

Global Change Research Program, and make key scientific contributions based on its

unique capabilities for global observation from space, data analysis and Earth system

modeling. The overarching objective is to improve the understanding of the global water

cycle to the point where useful predictions of regional hydrologic regimes can be made.

This detailed predictive capability is essential to deliver meaningful information for

practical application to water resource management, and for validating scientific

advances through the test of real-life predictions. Another, more fundamental, scientific

objective is to improve the understanding of atmospheric energy exchange processes and

their relationship to general circulation dynamics, so as to enable quantitative predictions

of the response of the Earth climate to external forcing. Questions to be addressed by this

research include:

• Is the global water cycle accelerating?

• Can weather systems and hydrologic processes that control water resources

be related to large-scale climate anomalies?

• Can the integrated effect of fast atmospheric and surface processes be

accurately represented in large-scale model predictions of climate change?

3. CLIMATE VARIABILITY AND PREDICTION

Climate variability encompasses regional-to-global scale transient variations that occur

over periods of a season or longer and long-term trends. Variations include natural

(intrinsic) variability that results from the internal dynamics of the climate system, as
A-4

well as forced changes resulting from the response of the climate system to changes in

relevant external factors, such as radiation from the sun or greenhouse gases introduced

by human activities. For the purpose of the NASA Earth science program, the climate

system is defined as the global atmosphere, oceans, ice, and land surface, and physical

interactions that occur between the components of this system. NASA recognizes that the

response of the Earth climate and environment to various disturbances may involve a

broader range of interactions, including geo-biochemical processes as well as changes in

terrestrial and marine ecosystems. These complex interactions are discussed in chapter 6

on Interdisciplinary Earth System Science.

The NASA research program on Climate Variability and Prediction is consistent with the

concepts and recommendations put forward in National Research Council reports on

Decade-to-Century-Scale Climate Variability and Change: A Science Strategy (NRC,

1998a) and Global Environmental Change: Research Pathways for the Next Decade –

Overview (NRC, 1998b). The research program focuses on the modes of variability that

involve, in a fundamental way, the dynamics of the slower components of the physical

climate system, the ocean circulation, snow and ice, that respond to external disturbances

with greater inertia and, therefore longer "memories," than the atmosphere itself.

Research activities are focused on understanding the ocean circulation, air-sea exchanges,

sea-ice processes, and the mass balance of polar ice sheet, as well as the long-term

measurement of radiative forcing factors that can be monitored from space. NASA fully

recognizes the role of the atmosphere and land in climatic variability and climate change.

Improved understanding of atmospheric and hydrologic processes is a central objective of

NASA's Earth system science research strategy.

This and the other components of the NASA Earth science program address the scientific

priorities of the US Global Change Research Program at the national level and the World

Climate Research Program (WCRP) in the international arena. NASA will continue to

participate in the worldwide interdisciplinary research effort on climate change, in

cooperation with other US and foreign agencies or institutions, and aims to make key

contributions based on its unique capabilities for high-quality measurements from space,

global data analysis and Earth system modeling. The overarching objective is to improve

the understanding of climate mechanisms to the point where useful prediction of regional

climate change can be made. Developing such understanding is also considered essential

to enable reliable detection of climate trends and the attribution of forced climate changes

to specific causal factors. To address the latter objective, NASA is prepared to participate

with operational environmental agencies and other partner agencies in developing an

Integrated Global Observing Strategy that can provide the required long-term systematic

records of critical environmental measurements. Scientific questions to be addressed by

this research include:

• Is climate varying in ways we can understand and predict?

• Can the observed climate changes be related to specific causes or forcing

factors?
A-5

4. ATMOSPHERIC CHEMISTRY

The Earth atmosphere is the fluid that connects most effectively the other components of

the Earth System –the oceans, the marine and terrestrial ecosystems, the geosphere and

the cryosphere – and provides the medium in which these components interact. It is a

chemically complex and dynamic mixture, the composition and structure of which

represent a balance among competing processes. Changes to that balance, caused by

natural phenomena or human action, can strongly influence life on Earth, either directly

through changes in chemicals present in the atmosphere, or indirectly through coupling

with other components of the Earth System. Atmospheric change is the result of strongly

interactive chemical and physical processes. Atmospheric temperature, for example,

depends on chemical composition, while the nature and rates of chemical processes

depend on temperature. In other words, chemistry plays a role in determining weather

and climate, while the physics and dynamics of the atmosphere influence chemical

processes and composition. The overarching goals of the NASA Atmospheric Chemistry

research program are to measure and understand how atmospheric composition is

changing in response to natural and anthropogenic forcings, and to enable accurate

prediction of future changes in ozone and surface ultraviolet radiation, climate, and

global pollution. Questions to be addressed by this research include:

• Is the Montreal Protocol working as expected to stop stratospheric ozone

depletion by industrially produced chemicals?

• How is the distribution of trace constituents being affected by meteorological

and chemical processes in the atmosphere?

• How much industrial and urban pollution will expand globally and with

what consequences?

5. SOLID EARTH SCIENCE

From a geophysical perspective, Earth is unique among terrestrial planets in that it is a

dynamic system that contains abundant water and also supports life. Earth has

profoundly evolved over the 4.5 billion years of its existence, constantly reforming its

surface and overturning its interior with a vigor that is often disruptive to the life it

supports. The basic structure of the Earth's interior was understood in some detail by the

end of the 1930’s; it was known that the planet has a metallic core, surrounded by a

mantle of dense minerals, then by a less dense crust, and finally by thin oceanic and

atmospheric layers. Yet the fact that every one of these elements is in motion,

manifesting a vast range of velocities over a diversity of scales, has only been known

since the 1960’s. A fundamental question is whether Earth’s distinctive dynamism is a

cause of the other unique features, the presence of liquid water and life, or a consequence

of the former. To address this fundamental question, we must understand the mechanics

of the Earth’s interior and surface, and governing mechanical, physical and chemical

processes.

Observations made solely from the Earth’s surface had long hobbled scientific

imagination. Gazing on quiet landscapes, the human perception of the Earth's dynamism

was restricted to infrequent catastrophes - violent earthquakes, volcanic eruptions - or
A-6

low key but persistent erosion processes. Today, the global perspective from space offers

a new outlook, a planetary reference frame from which to precisely determine the motion

of the mantle, overturning as a ponderously viscous fluid; to observe the planet's

magnetic field fluctuating with the turbulence of its liquid metal core; to measure changes

in the length of day forced by ocean currents and global winds; to watch how continents

strain in anticipation of an earthquake or volcanic eruption.

NASA’s Solid Earth research program examines the dynamics of the solid Earth at

virtually all spatial and temporal scales, and aims to establish the scientific basis for

reconstructing Earth’s past history and predicting its future evolution. The overarching

goal is to observe and understand the fundamental properties and processes of Earth’s

interior and crust that make it dynamic. The same effort also provides essential

information to guide decision-making on issues of great human import by illuminating

society’s vulnerability to natural hazards.

NASA’s objective in this domain is to contribute to scientific understanding and provide

technical leadership through pioneering space geodesy and remote sensing programs. The

program requires highly accurate geodetic measurements to monitor the terrestrial

reference frame, precise measurements of the static and time-dependent components of

the Earth’s gravity and magnetic fields, and observations of the Earth surface geologic

nature, topography, elevation, and deformation with time. The program will improve the

understanding of dynamical processes in the solid Earth and their interactions with other

elements of the environment, including impacts on human societies and the assessment of

vulnerability to natural hazards. In fact, the solid Earth science element is fully integrated

with NASA's Natural Hazards program, as part of the overall “Solid Earth and Natural

Hazard Program” of the Earth Science Enterprise. The scientific research effort is

comprised of two major components: 1) understanding the fundamental geophysics and

geodynamics of the Earth’s interior; and, 2) understanding global geological processes

that shape the topographic surface of the Earth. Scientific questions to be addressed

include:

• What are the motions of Earth’s interior and what information can we infer

about internal processes such as mantle convection and the generation of the

Earth's magnetic field?

• How is the Earth’s topographic surface being transformed and how can this

knowledge be used to predict future changes?

EARTH SCIENCE APPLICATIONS THEMES

Applications themes are similar in concept to the high-level science themes and questions

that drive the scientific research in the Earth Science Enterprise as described above. The

major difference is that the applications themes are defined by public and private sector

markets and necessities, and not scientific curiosity. The applications research may lead

to operational or commercial activities in other agencies and/or industry and therefore

have a substantial benefit to society.
A-7

A list of the current themes that will define the near-term programmatics include Disaster

Management, Environmental Quality, Food and Fiber, Human Health and Safety, Natural

Resources, and Urban and Infrastructure. These themes have been selected in

cooperation with the user sectors and beneficiaries of the Earth Science Enterprise.

Earth Science Enterprise Applications and Commercialization Themes

• Food and Fiber

- e.g., Precision Agriculture; Pest control; Forestry; Rangelands

• Natural Resources

- e.g., Land Use/Land Cover; Wetlands; Geology; Mineral/Energy Exploration and

Extraction; Recreation; Water Resources; Wildlife Management; Bio-diversity

and Habitat Analysis; Coastal and Ocean Systems(Fisheries, Human Impact on

Marine Systems)

• Disaster Management

- e.g., Earthquakes; Volcanic Eruptions and Ash Clouds; Landslides; Coastal

Hazards; Wildfires; Flooding; Severe Storms; Short-term Climate Change Effects

• Environmental Quality

- e.g., Air Quality; Tropospheric Ozone; Water Quality; Soils; Abandoned Mines;

Brownfields; Electromagnetic Energy; Contingency Spill Events; Urban Heat

Islands

• Urban and Infrastructure

- e.g., Growth Management; Urban and Regional Planning; Infrastructure Planning

(Transportation, Communication and Utilities)

• Human Health and Safety

- e.g., Public health (Water; Air; Carcinogens (aerosols), Ozone); Vector-borne and

Infectious Diseases

Earth Science Enterprise Applications themes have been mapped back to Earth Science

Enterprise Science themes (see figure below). This mapping is not a simple one-to-one

translation but a complex set of interconnections. The mapping further illustrates that

each application issue is interdisciplinary in nature and requires input and knowledge

from multiple scientific issues to be successfully defined and implemented. Nonetheless,

although the level of maturity of each connection may be variable, the development of

applications themes will be founded on the strongest Earth Science Enterprise science

possible.
A-8

MAPPING OF EARTH SCIENCE ENTERPRISE (ESE) SCIENCE THEMES TO

EARTH SCIENCE ENTERPRISE APPLICATIONS THEMES

ESE Science Themes ESE Application Themes

Climatic Trends & Variability

Global Carbon Cycle

Global Hydrological Cycle

Atmospheric Constituents 

& Ozone

Solid Earth & Natural Hazards

Disaster Management

Environmental Quality

Food & Fiber

Human Health & Safety

Natural Resources

Urban, Energy & 

Infrastructure Primary Importance = 

Secondary Importance = 

Applied research and applications development is issue-driven and represents a

continuum, or a “bridge,” between Earth Science Enterprise science and the factors that

drive the market adoption of applications in the user/beneficiary sectors.
B-1

APPENDIX B

G E N E R A L I N S T R U C T I O N S A N D P R O V I S I O N S 

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, by the selected investigator,

of Government instrumentation or property that becomes available, with or without

modification, that will meet the investigative objectives.

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. The investigator should also

understand that NASA may desire to select only a portion of the proposed investigation

and/or that NASA may desire the individual's participation with other investigators in a

joint investigation, in which case the investigator will be given the opportunity to accept

or decline such partial acceptance or participation with other investigators prior to a

selection. Where participation with other investigators as a team is agreed to, one of the

team members will normally be designated as its team leader or contact point.

III. Selection Without Discussion.

The Government reserves the right to reject any or all proposals received in response to

this AO when such action shall be considered in the best interest of the Government.

Notice is also given of the possibility that any selection may be made without discussion

(other than discussions conducted for the purpose of minor clarification). It is therefore

emphasized that all proposals should be submitted initially on the most favorable terms

that the offeror can submit.

IV. Foreign Proposals.

See NASA FAR Supplement 1872.705-1 General Instructions and Provisions Appendix

B, Management Plan and Cost Plan, paragraph (a)(3).

NASA FAR Supplement 1872.705-1, General Instructions and Provisions, Appendix B,

Management Plan and Cost Plan, paragraph (a)(3)
B-2

(3) Additional Guidelines Applicable to Non-U.S Proposers Only

The following guidelines are established for foreign responses to NASA's AO.

Unless otherwise indicated in a specific announcement, these guidelines indicate

the appropriate measures to be taken by foreign proposers, prospective foreign

sponsoring agencies, and NASA leading to the selection of a proposal and

execution of appropriate arrangements. They include the following:

(i) Where a "Notice of Intent" to propose is requested, prospective foreign

proposers should write directly to the NASA official designated in the AO

and send a copy of this letter to the International Relations Division,

Office of External Relations, Code IR, NASA, Washington, DC 20546,

U.S.A.

(ii) Unless otherwise indicated in the AO, proposals will be submitted in

accordance with this Appendix excluding cost plans. Proposals should be

typewritten and written in English.

(iii) Persons planning to submit a proposal should arrange with an

appropriate foreign governmental agency for a review and endorsement of

the proposed activity. Such endorsement by a foreign organization

indicates that the proposal merits careful consideration by NASA and that,

if the proposal is selected, sufficient funds will be available to undertake

the activity envisioned.

(iv) Proposals including the requested number of copies and letters of

endorsement from the foreign governmental agency must be forwarded to

NASA in time to arrive before the deadline established for each AO. These

documents should be sent to:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

International Relations Division

Code IY

Office of External Relations

Washington, DC 20546

U.S.A.

(v) Those proposals received after the closing date will be treated in

accordance with NASA's provisions for late proposals. Sponsoring foreign

government agencies may, in exceptional situations, forward a proposal

directly to the above address if review and endorsement is not possible

before the announced closing date. In such cases, NASA should be advised

when a decision on endorsement can be expected.

(vi) Shortly after the deadline for each AO, NASA's International

Relations Division will advise the appropriate sponsoring agency which

proposals have been received and when the selection process should be
B-3

completed. A copy of this acknowledgment will be provided to each

proposer.

(vii) Successful and unsuccessful proposers will be contacted directly by

the NASA Program Office coordinating the AO. Copies of these letters will

be sent to the sponsoring Government agency.

(viii) NASA's International Relations Division will then begin making the

arrangements to provide for the selectee's participation in the appropriate

NASA program. Depending on the nature and extent of the proposed

cooperation, these arrangements may entail:

(A) A letter of notification by NASA.

(B) An exchange of letters between NASA and the sponsoring

foreign governmental agency.

(C) An agreement or Memorandum of Understanding between

NASA and the sponsoring foreign governmental agency.

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 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.

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. To prevent inadvertent disclosure, proposal data shall not

be included in submissions (e.g., final reports) that are routinely released to the public.

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.
B-4

VI. Status of Cost Proposals (U.S. Proposals Only).

The investigator's institution agrees that the cost proposal 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 cost information in

accordance with FAR 15.403-5.

VII. Late Proposals.

The Government reserves the right to consider proposals or modifications thereof

received after the date indicated should such action be in the interest of the Government.

VIII. Source of Space Transportation System Investigations.

Investigators are advised that candidate investigations for Space Transportation System

(STS) missions can come from many sources.

IX. Disclosure of Proposals Outside 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 desire 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 (U.S. Proposals Only).

By submitting a proposal, the investigator and institution agree to accept the following

clause in any resulting contract:

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY

During the performance of this contract, the Contractor agrees as follows:

(a) The Contractor will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for

employment because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

(b) The Contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are

employed, and that employees are treated during employment without regard to

their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. This shall include, but not be

limited to, (1) employment, (2) upgrading, (3) demotion, (4) transfer, (5)

recruitment or recruitment advertising, (6) layoff or termination, (7) rates of pay
B-5

or other forms of compensation, and (8) selection for training, including

apprenticeship.

(c) The Contractor shall post in conspicuous places available to employees and

applicants for employment the notices to be provided by the Contracting Officer

that explain this clause.

(d) The Contractor shall, in all solicitations or advertisements for employees

placed by or on behalf of the Contractor, state that all qualified applicants will

receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex,

or national origin.

(e) The Contractor shall send to each labor union or representative of workers

with which it has a collective bargaining agreement or other contract or

understanding the notice to be provided by the Contracting Officer, advising the

labor union or workers' representative of the Contractor's commitments under this

clause, and post copies of the notice in conspicuous places available to employees

and applicants for employment.

(f) The Contractor shall comply with Executive Order 11246, as amended, and the

rules, regulations, and orders of the Secretary of Labor.

(g) The Contractor shall furnish to the contracting agency all information required

by Executive Order 11246, as amended, and by the rules, regulations, and orders

of the Secretary of Labor. Standard Form 100 (EEO-1), or any successor form, is

the prescribed form to be filed within 30 days following the award, unless filed

within 12 months preceding the date of award.

(h) The Contractor shall permit access to its books, records, and accounts by the

contracting agency or the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs

(OFCCP) for the purposes of investigation to ascertain the Contractor's

compliance with the applicable rules, regulations, and orders.

(i) If the OFCCP determines that the Contractor is not in compliance with this

clause or any rule, regulation, or order of the Secretary of Labor, the contract may

be canceled, terminated, or suspended in whole or in part, and the Contractor may

be declared ineligible for further Government contracts, under the procedures

authorized in Executive Order 11246, as amended. In addition, sanctions may be

imposed and remedies invoked against the Contractor as provided in Executive

Order 11246, as amended, the rules, regulations, and orders of the Secretary of

Labor, or as otherwise provided by law.

(j) The Contractor shall include the terms and conditions of subparagraph l

through 9 of this clause in every subcontract or purchase order that is not

exempted by the rules, regulations, or orders of the Secretary of Labor issued

under Executive Order 11246, as amended, so that these terms and conditions will

be binding upon each subcontractor or vendor.
B-6

(k) The Contractor shall take such action with respect to any subcontract or

purchase order as the contracting agency may direct as means of enforcing these

terms and conditions, including sanctions for non-compliance; provided, that if

the Contractor becomes involved in, or is threatened with, litigation with a

subcontractor or vendor as a result of direction, the Contractor may request the

United States to enter into the litigation to protect the interests of the United

States.

XI. Patent Rights.

(a) For any contract resulting from this solicitation awarded to other than a small

business firm or nonprofit organization, the clause at 1852.227-70, "New

Technology," shall apply. Such contractors may, in advance of contract, request

waiver of rights as set forth in the provision at 1852.227-71, "Requests for Waiver

of Rights to Inventions."

(b) For any 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 1852.227-11), shall

apply.
C-1

A P P E N D I X C 

G U I D E L I N E S F O R P R O P O S A L P R E P A R A T I O N 

The following guidelines apply to the preparation of proposals in response to this

University Earth System Science (UnESS) AO. The material presented is a guide for the

prospective proposer, and is not intended to be all encompassing. The proposer should,

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. Note that these guidelines apply to the original proposal that, if successful,

will result in selection for the Concept Study. A separate document provides the

guidelines for preparation of the Concept Study that will be used for the Downselect

Process.

G E N E R A L G U I D E L I N E S 

All documents must be typewritten in English, use the International System (SI) of units,

and be clearly legible. Submission of proposal material by facsimile (fax), electronic

media, videotape, floppy disk (except as noted below), etc., is not acceptable. In

evaluating proposals, NASA will only consider printed material. Although you are

allowed to provide references to published papers, World Wide Web sites, etc., your

proposal cannot rely upon these. The Evaluation panels are not obligated to check or

refer to these references.

The proposal must consist of only one volume, with readily identified sections

corresponding to sections A through L given below. Note the guidance on page count for

the various sections specified in Table C-1.

In order to allow for recycling of proposals after the review process, all proposals and

copies must be submitted on plain white paper only (e.g., no cardboard stock or plastic

covers, no colored paper, etc.). Photographs and color figures are permitted if printed on

recyclable white paper only. The original signed copy (including cover page,

endorsements, and Appendix F certifications) should be bound in a manner that makes it

easy to disassemble for reproduction. Except for the original, two-sided copies are

preferred. Every side upon which printing appears will be counted against the page

limits.

Proposals shall contain no more than 50 pages, exclusive of the investigation summary,

cover page, table of contents and endorsements (see Table C-1), including no more than

four fold out pages (28 x 43 cm; i.e., 11 x 17 inches). If (and only if) you are requesting

the additional funding from the Office of Equal Opportunity programs, you are allowed

one additional page. This must be a stand-alone page. This page will be removed for the

proposal review and used only after selection for the separate review by the Office of

Equal Opportunity Programs.
C-2

Table C-1. Proposal Page Count Limits

Section Section Name Page Limits

A Investigation Summary

Use UnESS

Forms 1 & 2

B Cover Page 1 (not part of

proposal limit)

C Endorsements No limit (not part

of proposal limit)

D Table of Contents No limit (not part

of proposal limit)

E

-------------

F

Science/Applications Investigation

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Student Involvement Investigation Description

25 pages total for

combination of

Sections E and F

G

--------------

H

--------------

I

--------------

J

Technical Implementation

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Management

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cost and Cost Estimating Methodology

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other Opportunities

25 pages total for

combination of

Sections G, H, I,

and J

K Office of Equal Opportunity Programs Minority

University Research and Education Programs

Funding

(This additional page is allowed only for those

proposals requesting funding from the Office of

Equal Opportunity Programs)

1 (required to be

on separate page

for removal

during evaluation

process)

L Appendices: (no others permitted)

Resumes (one page per team member)

Letters of Endorsement

Certifications

Statement(s) of Work (SOW)

Reference List (optional)

Acronyms List (optional)

No page limit,

but small size

encouraged

All pages other than fold out pages shall be 8.5 x 11 inches or A4 European standard.

Single- or double-column format is acceptable. In complying with the page limit, no

page should contain more than 55 lines of text and the type font should not be smaller

than 12-point Times (i.e., approximately 15 characters per inch). Figure captions should

be in 12 point. Smaller font is allowed within figures, Investigation Summary Forms,

and in the cost table. Table C-1 provides guidance on page count within the proposal.
C-3

E L E C T R O N I C V E R S I O N G U I D E L I N E S 

As described in Sections 4.3.2 and 4.3.3 of this Announcement, you should also provide

diskettes containing electronic versions of your proposal, along with a brief description of

the contents of the diskettes. All information shall be provided on DOS-compatible

(version 5.0 or higher), high density (1.44 megabytes), 3-1/2" diskettes. All text portions

of the proposal shall be provided in Microsoft Word for Windows format (version 6.0 or

earlier) and in ASCII (DOS) format on separate diskettes.

Only the text portion plus table and figure portions need be provided on diskettes. You

do not need to include material of an essentially graphic nature. Do not include

information on the diskettes that is not included in the paper volume of the proposal. If

the diskettes are found to include information that differs from the paper volume or are

found to be defective (e.g., non-readable) the diskettes will be returned to the proposer

and the proposer shall promptly provide replacement diskettes. These replacement

diskettes will not be considered a late proposal under NFS 1815.412, Late Proposals,

Modifications and Withdrawal of Proposals. Diskettes should be checked for computer

viruses before submission.

If you find it necessary to segment the proposal on multiple diskettes either because of

diskette space or other limitations, the files should be as large as possible and have a

logical relationship to the proposal structure. Also provide a brief description explaining

the diskette file structure, naming conventions, and other information that the proposer

feels may be helpful to use these files. Include the name and version of the software used

to check the diskettes for computer viruses. These pages do not count toward the

proposal pages limit.

P R O P O S A L C O N T E N T G U I D E L I N E S 

The outline and content of each proposal are described below. Only the high level table

of contents given in Table C-1 is required (i.e., Sections A through L). The lower level

subsection headings are advisory. Proposers should also refer to the evaluation criteria

listed in Section 5 of the AO to ensure that the proposal address the factors NASA will

use to evaluate the investigation.

A. INVESTIGATION SUMMARY

A summary of the proposed investigation must be included with the proposal.

UnESS Forms I and II are to be used for this Summary and are located at the end of

this Appendix C. Continuation sheets are not allowed. The Investigation Summary is

not counted against the page limit.

B. COVER PAGE

A cover page must be a part of the proposal, but will not be counted against the page

limit. It must be signed by the Principal Investigator and an official by title of the
C-4

investigator's organization that is authorized to commit the organization. The full

names of the Principal Investigator and the authorizing official, their addresses with

zip code, telephone and fax numbers, and electronic mail addresses, shall be included.

If the proposal includes a request for funding from the Office of Equal Opportunity

Programs for Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Other Minority

Universities (HBCU/OMU) capacity augmentation as described in Sections 5.1.1 and

5.2.7 of this Announcement and in Section K below, then the cover page must in

addition, be signed by an official by title of the HBCU/OMU that is authorized to

commit the organization.

C. ENDORSEMENTS

All co-investigators, lead team members and non-U.S. endorsements must be

included as part of the proposal. These pages will not be counted against the page

limit. Endorsements shall include the signature, full name, address with zip code,

telephone and fax numbers, and electronic mail address.

Participation by non-U.S. individuals and/or institutions as team members or

contributors to UnESS investigations must be endorsed by the institutions and/or

governments involved. Institutional endorsement is required for contributions. If

government support is required then a government endorsement is also needed. The

letter of endorsement must provide evidence that the non-U.S. institution and/or

government officials are aware and supportive of the proposed investigation and will

pursue funding for the investigation if selected by NASA. Such endorsements must

be submitted per the schedule in Section 1.3 and in compliance with the provisions of

Sections 3.1 and 4.3.1. Include these letters in the Appendix, as indicated below.

D. TABLE OF CONTENTS

The proposal should contain a table of contents, which will not be counted against the

page limit. This table of contents should parallel the outlines provided below in

Sections E through L.

E. SCIENCE/APPLICATIONS INVESTIGATION

1. Science/Applications Goals, Objectives, and Justification

This section should consist of a discussion of the goals and objectives of the

investigation, their value to the primary and any secondary science/applications

themes and questions (see Appendix A), and their relationships to past, current,

and future investigations and missions. It should describe the history and basis

for the proposal and discuss the need for such an investigation. This should

include the explicit justification of the investigation to the Earth

science/applications question.

The scientific/applications merit of the proposed investigation can be intrinsic to

the mission itself, or based on the value of the technology to future
C-5

science/applications demonstrated through the mission. This includes innovative

technology for new Earth system data sets and innovative technology to better

measure current Earth system data sets. For example, if the scientific goal

depends upon deployment of a larger mission or a fleet of small spacecraft, the

UnESS mission could be a demonstration of a key instrument or a single element

of that fleet. In this case, NASA will assess the likelihood that the proposed flight

demonstration will lead to a successful full mission. Plans and/or technology

insertion roadmaps for transferring such technologies to other missions, and/or to

the private sector, including the non-aerospace sector are encouraged. The means

by which NASA's Office of Earth Science plans to implement new technology is

described in the Office of Earth Science Integrated Technology Strategy

(http://www.earth.nasa.gov/visions/index.html) and the NASA Technology Plan

(http://technologyplan.nasa.gov/).

2. Measurement Objectives and the Nature of the Investigation

Proposals must cover the end-to-end investigation to answer the over-arching

Earth system scientific/applications questions. The relationship between the

proposed scientific objectives, the data to be returned, and the instrument payload

to be used in carrying out the proposed investigation must be unambiguous and

clearly stated in the proposal. Any support activities including balloon, aircraft,

and ground validation/calibration activities must be described.

Your proposal should demonstrate that your mission will acquire the necessary

results within the life-span of the mission. Your mission should not require an

extension of the mission beyond the life proposed and costed in you proposal.

Extended missions will not be considered as part of this AO.

Included also a discussion of any descope or reduced mission performance

options. Discuss the impacts of these and the scientific/application resilience of

the investigation.

3. Instrumentation

This section should describe the instrumentation and the criteria used for its

selection. It should identify the individual instruments and instrument systems,

including their characteristics and requirements for number of channels, mass,

power and volume. A science traceability analysis should be preformed mapping

between the science/application objectives, the measurements, the functional

requirements, and the engineering requirements. Such characteristics include a

discussion of the data rates, fields of view, resolution, precision/sensitivity,

pointing accuracy, calibration, etc

4. Anticipated Science/Applications Return

The relationship between the data products generated and the

scientific/applications objectives should be explicitly described, as should the
C-6

expected results. UnESS mission teams will be responsible for the measurements

to be taken in the course of the mission, the data to be returned, the approach that

will be taken in analyzing the data to achieve the scientific objectives of the

investigation, the initial analysis of the data, its subsequent delivery to an

appropriate data repository, the publication of scientific findings, and

communication of results to the science community and public. You should

provide a discussion of the scientific products and how the science/applications

products and data obtained will be used to fulfill the scientific objectives. This

should include a discussion of how the science/applications data will be obtained,

including a plan for delivery of the products, and the individuals responsible for

the data delivery. This description should identify the investigation to be

performed, the quality of the data to be returned (resolution, coverage, pointing

accuracy, measurement precision, etc.), and the quantity of data to be returned

(bits, images, etc.).

The plan for algorithm development should be discussed. In addition, the data

reduction and analysis plan, after the data have been delivered to the ground,

should be discussed, including the method and format of the data reduction, data

calibration and validation, and preliminary analysis. The process by which data

will be prepared for archiving and distribution should be discussed, including a

list of the specific data products and the individual team members responsible for

the data products. The plan must include a detailed schedule for the submission

of raw and reduced data to the appropriate data archive in the proper formats,

media, etc. Delivery of the data to the data archive must take place in the shortest

time possible.

In accordance with NASA policy, data from NASA funded missions must be

disseminated to the scientific community without restriction for a cost of no more

than the cost of dissemination. UnESS teams are encouraged to propose

innovative data management processes for data dissemination and wide data

distribution processes. For data from a mission with significant U.S. private

sector investment, innovative data management approaches will be considered.

Data are to be released as soon as possible after a brief data validation period

appropriate for the mission and the process must be described. UnESS teams will

be responsible for collecting the scientific, engineering, and ancillary information

necessary to validate and calibrate the scientific data prior to depositing it in the

appropriate data repository. This repository can be a database accessible by the

scientific community through the Internet or may conform to the Office of Earth

Science Data and Information Policy Guidelines (MTPE/EOS Reference

Handbook, Asrar and Greenstone, 1995). The time required to complete this

process should be the minimum necessary to provide appropriate data to the

scientific community and the general public and must be described in the

proposal. As part of the funded data analysis, archival and dissemination

activities, mission teams must include an appropriate period for data analysis

independent of archiving activities.
C-7

5. Science/Applications Team

This section must identify the mission science team and their roles and

responsibilities. The capabilities and experience of all members of the proposed

science team should be described. For any student members of the science team

that may lack previous experience your proposal should demonstrate other

considerations, such as the relationship to and experience of the student's mentor

for the mission. Resumes or curriculum vitae of team members and/or mentors

should be included as attachments to the proposal (see Section L, below). The

role of each science team member in the investigation should be explicitly defined

and justified.

6. Plans to Resolve Open Science/Applications Investigation Issues

Identify and discuss any unresolved issues. Included your planned approach and

schedule for resolving these issues.

F. STUDENT INVOLVEMENT INVESTIGATION DESCRIPTION

For this UnESS AO, a student is defined as any individual enrolled in an accredited

university educational program with the documented intention of obtaining a degree.

1. Student Involvement Goals and Objectives

This AO is intended to foster the development of the next generation of Earth

system scientists, engineers, managers, educators, and entrepreneurs through

student involvement in Earth observation space missions at the university level.

The student involvement section should describe the significant and meaningful

hands-on student involvement objectives of the proposed investigation.

This section should consist of a discussion of the goals and objectives of the

student involvement aspects of the investigation, the criteria used to determine

these goals and objectives, and the value of the investigation to the education of

students.

2. Extent and Breadth of Student Involvement

Hands-on student involvement should occur through the complete mission

process from proposal development through analysis and distribution of the data

to the science community.

NASA expects that the nature of the UnESS AO implies that university scientific

and engineering students will be involved in the entire process. However, NASA

uses the expertise of many disciplines in addition to the science and engineering

disciplines in the management and communications of its projects. In today’s

environment, the government must learn to use the “best practices” of business,

and NASA needs to know of and use all the talents available to produce the best
C-8

value for the taxpayers. Therefore, it is strongly recommended that the missions

be expanded to non-science/engineering university schools such as business,

journalism and communications, graphic and fine art, education, law and etc.

These and other disciplines can produce products that are important to the overall

success of a mission and the communication of its results. It also provides a

larger opportunity for expanding the base of citizens that understand the

importance of NASA’s research in disciplines that normally do not have contact

with NASA and its programs. Some examples of how this may work are given

below.

• Extremely low-cost missions of this type require innovative management

practices. A business school can be associated with the team to develop

innovative management practices and procedures and then support the

actual management of the mission.

• A journalism and communications school can develop a communications

campaign for a mission and provide this service to the mission, NASA and

the Earth Science Enterprise.

• A graphic and fine art school can develop public relations and

communications campaign visual products for the mission, NASA, and the

Earth science/applications program.

• An education school can develop and implement techniques to educate the

next generation of university students and projects to inform the public

about a mission and the importance of it to the overall Earth

science/applications program.

This section should also describe any plans for participation by minority students

and/or by Historically Black and Colleges and Universities and Other Minority

Universities. NASA strongly encourages you to consider participation of

HBCU/OMU and under represented students in general in your UnESS proposal.

REMINDER: You must include in the main body of your proposal all relevant

information on minority student and minority university involvement. The Office

of Equal Opportunity Programs Minority University Research and Education

Funding section of your proposal (see K below) will be removed and evaluated

separately, only for those proposals selected for Concept Study Report funding.

3. Educational and Academic Impact of Student Involvement

This section should describe the plan for integrating all the student involvement

aspects of this AO into the complete mission process, including proposal

development through deliver of data to the science/applications community, and

education and public outreach.

4. Mentoring and Student Oversight

This section should describe the relationship between the students involved in the

mission and their mentors. Include in this section your plans and processes for
C-9

monitoring and reviewing the student's work and progress towards mission

completion.

5. Plans to Resolve Open Student Involvement Issues

Identify and discuss any unresolved issues. Include your planned approach and

schedule for resolving these issues.

G. TECHNICAL IMPLEMENTATION

The Technical Implementation section should describe the method and procedures for

investigation definition, design, development, integration, ground operations, and flight

operations. A discussion of all new technologies to be used for the investigation,

including back-up plans with scheduled decision criterion for those technologies, should

be provided. This section should also detail the expected products and end items

associated with each phase. Mission teams have the freedom to use their own processes,

procedures, and methods. The use of innovative processes, techniques, and activities by

mission teams in accomplishing their objectives is encouraged when cost, schedule, and

technical improvements can be demonstrated. The benefits of such processes and

products should be discussed.

1. Mission Design

This section should provide an overview of the mission, including mission design,

mission design drivers, instrument accommodation, spacecraft, launch vehicle and

services required, orbital parameters, ground systems communications approach,

and mission operations plan

Specific information should be included that describes the unique requirements

placed on these mission elements by the science/applications investigation.

Proposals should include linkage between required physical measurement and

proposed mission approach. Consider providing a "traceability matrix" showing

how the proposed mission design complies with the stated objectives,

requirements, and constraints of the proposed investigation.

The proposal should describe the mission observing strategy and spacecraft

performance required for obtaining the necessary data with the proposed

instrumentation. Include the concept for operating the mission and the

requirements for mission operations. Consider providing a preliminary mission

timeline indicating periods of data acquisition, data downlink, etc. Include the

rationale for the selection of launch option.

Address in your proposal the heritage and maturity of mission elements including,

the spacecraft, ground systems, and mission design. The proposal should describe

the systems engineering approach including the integration and test approach,

trade studies to be conducted, and the approach to flight assurance, including
C-10

reliability and redundancy. Identify and discuss any innovative features of the

mission design that minimize total mission costs.

2. Instrument Implementation

This section should describe the science applications instrument (or instruments)

for the investigation. Include a preliminary description of each instrument with a

block diagram showing the instrument systems and their interfaces, along with a

description of the estimated performance of the instrument. Provide a summary

of the key margins, including the rationale for margin allocation. Identify those

design margins that are driving costs.

Your proposal should indicate items that are proposed to be developed, as well as

any existing instrumentation or design/flight heritage. Consider including an

Instrumentation Technical Maturity Matrix showing the technical maturity of the

instrument components, using the technical readiness levels (defined in Appendix

G). Discuss the steps needed for space qualification of your instrument. Identify

any innovative features incorporated to effect cost savings. Include where

appropriate calibration plans and operational/control considerations.

3. Instrument Interface and Payload Integration

This section should include information pertinent to the accommodation of the

instrumentation on the spacecraft (or host platform if proposal is for a partial

mission). Describe the Instrument characteristics and requirements, and how they

match the capabilities of the spacecraft, such as:

• mass

• volumetric envelope

• attitude

• fields of view

• weight

• power

• thermal

• pointing

• stability

• command and telemetry

Discuss the sensitivity to or generation of contamination (e.g., electromagnetic

interference, gaseous effluents, etc.), and the potential (if any) for significant

instrument-generated jitter and momentum. Describe the planned process for

physically and analytically integrating the instrument(s) with the flight system.

Describe the testing strategy of the science/applications payload, prior to

integration with the spacecraft.
C-11

4. Spacecraft

This section should describe the spacecraft design approach, particularly as it

relates to new versus existing hardware. It should identify the spacecraft systems

and describe their characteristics and requirements. The proposal should include

a description of the flight system design with a block diagram showing the flight

element subsystems and their interfaces, along with the approach for development

of the flight software. Describe the flight heritage or rationale used to select the

flight system and its subsystems, major assemblies, and interfaces. The

discussion of heritage should address two important issues: (1) prior flight

experience or flight-qualified design of specific subsystem components, and; (2)

overall subsystem design, whether new, modified, or exact repeat of a design

flown previously. This section should also discuss the design process used: trade

studies, simulations, technology development, engineering models, prototypes,

etc.

Subsystem characteristics and requirements should be described to the greatest

extent possible. Any design features incorporated to effect cost savings should be

identified; however, benefits should be specified and enabling assumptions or

risks should be identified. Provide the rationale for, and derivation of, margin

allocations including mass, power, communication link, pointing accuracy, etc.

Identify those design margins that are driving costs.

For partial mission proposals, provide the appropriate information above that is

related to the proposed investigation’s requirements on and interfaces with the

host spacecraft.

5. Launch Service

Describe your launch option selection. Since the relatively low cost cap for

UnESS mission precludes a dedicated launch, your proposal should discuss the

range of acceptable launch options, orbit parameters, and the likelihood that your

mission will be able to find a ride in the timeframe you are proposing. If you are

proposing a partial mission (that is, and instrument on another, host spacecraft),

describe the plans for the host mission. Include information on the launch option

margins and reserves (volume, mass, etc.).

6. Manufacturing, Integration and Test

This section should describe the manufacturing strategy to produce, test, and

verify the hardware/software necessary to accomplish the mission. It should

include a description of the main processes/procedures planned in the fabrication

of flight hardware, software, production personnel resources, incorporation of

new technology/materials, and the preliminary test and verification program. A

preliminary schedule for manufacturing, integration, and test activities should be

included. A description of the planned end items, including engineering and

qualification hardware, should be included.
C-12

7. Mission Operations, Ground and Data System

This section should discuss mission operations and the ground operations support

required for the proposed investigation. The planned approach for managing

mission operations and all flight operations support, including mission planning,

should be discussed. The approach to the development of the ground data system,

including the use, if any, of existing facilities, including Government facilities,

should be described. Consider including a block diagram of the Ground Data

System (GDS) showing the end-to-end concept (acquisition through archiving)

for operations and data flow to the subsystem level. Describe communications,

tracking, and ground support requirements. Describe the software design heritage

and software development approach and its relationship to the flight system

software development. Discuss the proposed communications (or active sensing)

frequency bands, and identify any issues for obtaining spectrum allocation

license(s). Provide estimates of the following:

Downlink Information.

• Data volume (Mbytes/day),

• Bit error rate,

• Onboard storage (Mbytes),

• Power available for communications (watts),

• Number of data dumps per day,

• Housekeeping data destination (latitude and longitude),

• Science/applications data destination (latitude and longitude), and

• Maximum time lag between data dump and data arrival at destination.

Uplink Information.

• Number of uplinks per day,

• Number of Bytes per uplink,

• Bit error rate.

Specific features incorporated into the flight and ground system design that lead

to low-cost operation should be identified. The use of any existing mission

operations facilities and processes should be described, as well as any new

facilities required to meet mission objectives.

Mission teams may use non-NASA or NASA navigation, tracking, control,

communications, and other services. Information on space communications

capabilities and costing is given in the Ground Data Systems and Mission

Operations and Data Analysis document available in the UnESS Project Library.

ISS payloads must use the ISS communications systems which are provided at no

cost and described in documents referenced in the ISS UnESS Research

Opportunities document in the UnESS Project Library.
C-13

8. Plans to Resolve Open Technical Implementation Issues

This section should describe the means by which the mission definition and

preliminary design study will be performed. This section should identify the key

mission tradeoffs and options to be investigated during the Concept Definition

Studies and should identify those issues, technologies, and decision points critical

to the mission success. Identify and discuss any unresolved issues and potential

risk areas to the proposed investigation. Identify your approach and schedule for

resolving these issues and mitigating these risks. For example:

• NASA recognizes that teaming arrangements to implement the

investigation may not be complete at the time of the proposal. If your

teaming arrangements are not complete, demonstrate in your proposal that

there are multiple candidate implementation approaches for the spacecraft,

launch vehicle, communications, and ground systems that will allow the

successful implementation of the investigation.

• NASA seeks innovative missions but because of the short definition and

development time, significant technology development may not be

possible although technology infusion that enhances performance and

reduces costs of the mission is encouraged. Investigations dependent on

new technology, technology development, or technology enhancement

must identify the technology(s) along with risks involved and alternative

approaches to resolve issues by completion of the Concept Study. If

necessary, identify a reasonable back-up approach that will assure the

success of the investigation.

H. MANAGEMENT

A single Principal Investigator (PI) that will be responsible for the scientific integrity

of the mission must lead each UnESS mission investigation team. Co-Investigators

may be from any category of U.S. or non-U.S. organization, including educational

institutions; industry or nonprofit institutions; one of the NASA Centers, the Jet

Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), other Federally-funded research and development

centers, or other U. S. Government agencies; or foreign organizations. However, CoInvestigators must have an identified role in the proposal, play a defined and

necessary role in the investigation, and covered in the funding plan. Teams may be

formed from any combination of these institutions but must facilitate significant and

meaningful hands-on participation by U.S. university students. Industry mentorships

of missions are encouraged if industry brings significant contributions to the mission.

This mission team has full responsibility and authority to accomplish the mission.

The PI is expected to be in charge of the proposed investigation, with full

responsibility for its scientific integrity. The PI is responsible for assembling a team

to propose and implement the investigation. Proposers may obtain services from any

source. Please note that the level of detail required in the proposal is the same,

independent of which organizations are part of the proposed mission team. The PI is

accountable to NASA for the scientific success of the investigation. Therefore, the PI
C-14

must be prepared to recommend mission termination if, in his/her judgment, the

successful achievement of established science/applications objectives, as defined in

the proposal, is no longer likely within the committed cost and schedule reserves.

Each selected investigation must have a Project Manager (PM) who reports to the PI

and will oversee the technical implementation of the investigation. The role,

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

technical and managerial needs of the investigation will be met. The PI or a student

is not precluded from assuming the role of PM provided that he/she meets the above

criteria and has sufficient time to fulfill all proposed roles.

1. Management Processes and Plans

This section should briefly summarize the investigator's proposed management

approach, tools and processes. Proposals must encompass all aspects of the

investigation from the initial studies through delivery of the data to the

appropriate data repository and their analysis. NASA Handbook NPG 7120.5A,

Management of Major System Programs and Requirements, delineates activities,

milestones, and products typically associated with each of the phases and may be

used as a reference in defining a team’s mission approach. This Handbook is

included in the UnESS Project Library (see Appendix D). Mission teams have the

freedom to use their own processes, procedures, and methods, and the use of

innovative processes is encouraged when cost, schedule, technical improvements,

and reliability can be demonstrated.

Partial mission proposals should specifically address how the mission team will

interrelate with the host organization, organizationally and managerially. Partial

mission proposals should also address the following:

• Describe the status of the commitment from the spacecraft

builder/owner or sponsoring organization to fly the proposed

instrument or conduct the proposed investigation.

• Describe if and how the proposed investigation relates to the

spacecraft sponsor’s overall mission objectives.

• Describe the investigation development plan and how it fits in the

development plan for the sponsor’s mission.

• Describe how the operations plan for the proposed investigation fits

within the mission of the sponsoring organization.

The team must propose performance metrics that will be incorporated into a

successful team’s contract. Violation of the agreed upon metrics may be cause for

termination. The mission team should develop a Work Breakdown Structure

(WBS) that best fits its organizational approach and mission design concept.

Successful innovative management approaches will be examined by Office of

Earth Science for use within the Earth science/applications program.
C-15

NASA will exert limited oversight of the selected missions and intends to allow

the Principal Investigator and his/her team to use their own management

processes, procedures, and methods to the fullest extent possible. Mission teams

should define the management, review and reporting approach and management

tools for tracking cost, schedule and risk best suited for their particular teaming

arrangement. Each team must have a safety reliability and quality assurance

program. These approaches should be commensurate with the investigation’s

implementation approach, while retaining a simple and effective management

structure necessary to assure the adequate control of development within the cost

and schedule constraints. NASA only will require four reviews.

• Preliminary Design Review during mission definition phase

• Mission Confirmation Review during mission definition phase

• Mission Readiness Review

• Launch Readiness Review

Additional Shuttle and ISS required safety reviews are described in the ISS

UnESS Research Opportunities document in the UnESS Project Library.

The use of innovative processes, techniques, and activities by mission teams in

accomplishing their objectives is encouraged; however, they should be employed

only when cost, schedule, or technical improvements can be demonstrated and

specific enabling assumptions are identified. In addition, each team should

identify management processes and tools that may be useful to NASA in the

management of its programs and projects.

2. Schedule

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 including NASA required

reviews; instrument development; spacecraft development; instrument-tospacecraft integration and test; launch vehicle integration; and mission operations

and data analysis. Schedule reserve should be clearly identified.

3. Team Organization, Structure, and Experience

The proposal should describe and discuss the management organization and

decision-making process and the teaming arrangement. This should include the

responsibilities of team members, including contributors, and institutional

commitments. The proposal should address any unique capabilities that each

team member organization brings to the team, as well as previous experience with

similar systems and equipment. The specific roles and responsibilities of the

Principal Investigator, Co-Investigators, and Project Manager who should report

to the Principal Investigator should be discussed. Key project personnel (e.g., the

Project Manager) need not be identified by name at this time.
C-16

4. Risk Management

Each investigation must define the risk management approach it intends to use to

ensure a safe and successful achievement of the mission objectives within

established resource and schedule constraints. Included in this discussion of risk

management should be risk mitigation plans for any new technologies and the

need for any long-lead items that need to be placed on a contract before the start

of the development phase, to ensure timely delivery. In addition, any

manufacturing, test, or other facilities needed to ensure successful completion of

the proposed investigation should be identified.

5. Mission Assurance and Safety

This section should describe the proposed approach to ensure product quality,

including identification of trade studies, the parts selection strategy, and the plans

to incorporate new technology. This section should also describe the product

assurance plan, including plans for problem/failure reporting, inspections, quality

control, parts selection and control, reliability, safety assurance, and software

validation. Selected investigations shall have a product assurance program that is

consistent with the ISO 9000 series, American National Standard, “Quality

Systems - Model for Quality Assurance in Design, Development, Production,

Installation, and Servicing,” ANSI/ASQC Q9001-1994.

6. Facilities and Equipment

Discuss the facilities and equipment needed for the investigation, including any

new, or modifications to existing, facilities, laboratory equipment, and ground

support equipment (GSE) (including those of the team's proposed contractors and

those of NASA and other U.S. Government agencies) required to execute the

investigation. The outline of new facilities and equipment should also indicate

the lead-time involved and the planned schedule for construction, modification,

and/or acquisition of the facilities.

7. Plans to Resolve Open Management Issues

Identify and discuss any unresolved issues. Include your planned approach and

schedule for resolving these issues.

I. COST AND COST ESTIMATING METHODOLOGY

1. Basis of Cost Estimate

The proposals must include the Total Mission Cost, which includes the NASA

Earth Science Enterprise cost and all contributed costs, except for the funding

provided by the Office of Equal Opportunity (this funding should be identified

and discussed in Section K). The Total Mission Cost includes but is not limited to

the following:
C-17

• Mission conceptual study, definition and development of all flight and

ground hardware and software, acquisition of launch services, launch,

and operations of the mission

• Non-satellite measurements necessary for calibration or validation of

observations

• Other mission support

• Development, operation, refinement, maintenance, documentation, and

publication of all required algorithms to accomplish the mission

• Processing, archiving, distribution, maintenance, documentation, and

information management of all mission derived data products to

permit community-wide access

• Publication of results in refereed science literature

• Delivery to NASA, at mission end, all data supporting information and

available results

• Cost of the student involvement requirements, education/public

outreach cost, fee and contributions.

These costs shall be consistent with the project requirements described in Sections

3, 4, and 5 of the AO. The amount to be costed in each fiscal year should be

identified by providing the data in Table C-1 for University Earth System Science

Missions, which will not be counted against the page limit. The top portion of

Table C-1 requests cost data relative to the NASA ESE Cost. The lower portion

addresses contributions. Table C-2 gives the NASA inflation index to be used to

calculate real year dollars.

Identify and justify the methodology used to estimate the cost, for example,

specific cost model, past performance, cost estimating relationships from

analogous missions, and assumptions. Describe the budget reserve strategy,

including budget reserve levels as a function of mission phase.

a. Full Cost Accounting

NASA services, facilities, and equipment can be proposed. Where

NASA-provided services, facilities and equipment are used, NASA Civil

Service labors 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 study, NASA Centers may submit full

cost proposals based on the instructions in the NASA Financial

Management Manual, Section 9091-5, “Cost Principles for Reimbursable

Agreements,” or based on their own Center-approved full cost accounting

models. Other 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.
C-18

b. NASA ESE Cost

The NASA ESE Cost is the funding that the NASA Earth Science

Enterprise would be expected to provide to the mission team over the

course of the investigation, beginning with initial selection and ending

with the conclusion of data analysis and distribution of data to the

scientific community. Examples of costs to be included are any upper

stages; flight hardware, including science/applications instrumentation and

spacecraft; launch services; education and outreach activities; new

technology; subcontracting costs (including fees); science/applications

teams; all personnel required to conduct the investigation, analyze and

publish results, and deliver data in archival format; insurance; ground data

system; labor (contractor); NASA Civil Servant costs; reserves; and

contract fees. A mission reserve will not be maintained by Office of Earth

Science; therefore, each mission must include its own credible mission

phased reserve proportional to the development risk. The NASA Earth

Science Enterprise costs for the mission is capped at $15 M including

launch services and proposers are strongly encouraged to propose lower

cost missions. This is a cap in funding, not a guide, and those proposals

that are proposed at the cap will not be able to adjust during the Concept

Study. The cost is a consideration in the selection of investigations and in

the continuing assessment of ongoing missions.

c. Goods and/or Services Offered on a No-Exchange-of-NASA-Funds Basis

Contributions of any kind, whether cash or non-cash (cash, property

and/or services) to UnESS investigation by organizations other than the

Office of Earth Science are encouraged but not required. 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. A letter of endorsement that contains a

statement of financial commitment from each responsible organization

offering to make a contribution to the investigation must be submitted

with the proposals for all U.S. components. For non-U.S. components of

proposals, see Section 3.12.

The cost of contributed hardware or software 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 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
C-19

modification alone). In this case, document the commitment to complete

the development on the part of the organization funding the other

application.

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

paid for similar work in the offeror's organization. The cost of

contributions should not include funding spent before the start of the

investigation. 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. NASA will evaluate the realism of all costs regardless of the

proposed source.

2. Reserves and Margins

Include a discussion of reserves, margins, and descope options, including the time

phasing and critical decision points. Justify the level and allocation of these

reserves, margins and descope options based on the level of technical and

programmatic risk for your investigation. Discuss the management of the

reserves and margins, including whom in the management organization manages

the reserves and when and how the reserves are released.

3. Plans to Resolve Open Cost Issues

Identify and discuss any unresolved issues. Include your planned approach and

schedule for resolving these issues.

J. OTHER OPPORTUNITIES

The education and public outreach plans, small disadvantaged business plan, and

plans for commercialization should provide a summary of the benefits offered by the

mission beyond the scientific/applications and student involvement benefits brought

by obtaining and analyzing the desired scientific data.

1. Educational and Public Outreach

This section shall provide a summary of the education and public outreach

benefits offered by the mission beyond the scientific/applications and student

involvement participation benefits (as described in Section E above). This section

should reflect the proposer’s commitment to achieving the goals of the Office of

Earth Science education and public outreach programs. The proposer should

include innovative approaches to enhancing the level of Earth

science/applications understanding and public awareness. The educational

outreach discussion should discuss any proposed K-16 education activities to be

preformed by the mission and should include education outreach to under

represented students, including students and faculty at Historically Black Colleges

and Universities and Other Minority Universities. For example, this section could

describe any mentorship programs that are established with local high schools.
C-20

The goals and objectives of this aspect of the investigation and the value of a

mentorship program to the education of students should be described.

Further information on the Office of Earth Science’s broad approach to education

and outreach can be found in Earth Science Enterprise Educational Strategy Plan

(http://www.earth.nasa.gov/education/ edstratplan/index.html). Guidance on the

use of new technology in investigations can be found at

http://www.earth.nasa.gov/visions/index.html. The NASA Implementation Plan

for education (http://education.nasa.gov/implan/exec.html) provides further highlevel guidance.

Education programs should support the national standards in science,

mathematics, technology and geography. Proposed activities might also include

public information programs that will inform the public through mass media or

other means, or utilize other innovative ideas for bringing Earth

science/applications to the public. Proposals should include the Principal

Investigator’s approach for planning an education and public outreach program,

arranging for appropriate partners and alliances, implementing the education and

public outreach program (including appropriate evaluation activities), and plans

for disseminating education and public outreach products and materials.

Examples of education and public outreach activities are given in the UnESS

Library.

2. Small, Small Disadvantaged, and Minority Institution Involvement

This section shall provide a summary for the subcontracting plans for Small

Disadvantaged and Women-Owned Small Businesses, and Minority Institutions

involvement in the implementation of the investigation. The subcontracting

approach should be discussed and must state subcontracting goals for small

disadvantaged, women-owned, Historically Black Colleges and Universities, and

Other Minority Universities.

The proposing institution(s) shall agree to use their best efforts to assist NASA in

achieving its goal for the participation of small disadvantaged businesses, womenowned small businesses, Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs),

and Other Minority Universities (OMUs) including Hispanic serving institutions

and Tribal colleges and Universities in NASA procurements. Investment in these

organizations reflects NASA’s commitment to increase the participation of

minority concerns in the aerospace community and is viewed as an investment in

our Nation’s future. Proposals should recognize this requirement and should

discuss the intent to include small disadvantaged businesses and minority

institutions; however, it may not be possible to finalize plans to meet this

requirement until the concept studies are complete.

NASA contracts resulting from this solicitation which offer subcontracting

possibilities, exceed $500,000, and are with entities other than small business

concerns, will contain the clause at FAR 52.219-9. Offerors who are selected
C-21

under the Downselect Process under this AO, and who meet the foregoing

conditions, will be required to negotiate appropriate subcontracting plans. A

proposed subcontracting plan shall be provided in this section and will be

evaluated as part of the Downselect Process (see Section 5.1).

The institutions eligible to be considered as Minority Institutions for the purposes

described in this section and in Section K below are Historically Black Colleges

and Universities and Other Minority Universities as defined and certified by the

Department of Education. A list of U.S. accredited post secondary minority

institutions can be found at the Internet address

http://www.ed.gov/offices/OCR/99minin.html.

3. Commercial Opportunities

U.S. economic and technical competitiveness achieved through partnerships

between pubic sector programs and the private sector are important to the U.S.

Also, many social benefits are derived from a strong U.S. economy. Therefore,

proposals to enhance commercialization opportunities are encouraged. Discuss in

this section the social benefits and enhanced U.S. economic and technical

competitiveness achieved through partnerships between the public sector

programs and the private sector. Specify any specific examples of

commercialization.

4. Plans to Resolve Open Other Opportunity Issues

Identify and discuss any unresolved issues. Included your planned approach and

schedule for resolving these issues.

K. OFFICE OF EQUAL OPPORTUNITY PROGRAMS MINORITY

UNIVERSITY RESEARCH AND EDUCATION PROGRAMS FUNDING

Note: Include this one page section only if you are requesting funding from the

Office of Equal Opportunity Programs. This section will be evaluated as a separate

proposal to the Office of Equal Opportunity Programs, and will be removed prior to

evaluation of your proposal by the Office of Earth Science. Therefore the main body

of your proposal should describe the involvement of all mission team members,

including any Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Other Minority

Universities (HBCU/OMU) involvement.

After concept study selection, the Office of Equal Opportunity Programs will conduct

an independent and separate evaluation of the selected proposals for significant and

meaningful participation by HBCUs/OMUs for additional direct funding to the

HBCUs/OMUs. The Office of Equal Opportunity Programs evaluation will not

influence the concept study selections.

As a means of promoting the participation of HBCUs and OMUs in Earth

science/applications and space flight missions, the Office of Equal Opportunity
C-22

Programs will consider providing additional funds. These funds will be allocated to

augment the capacity of HBCUs and OMUs to participate in Earth

science/applications missions. Examples of augmented capacity for HBCUs/OMUs

are given in the UnESS Library. Up to $500,000 is available to be awarded by Office

of Equal Opportunity Programs for significant and meaningful participation by

certified HBCUs/OMUs. A maximum of $100,000 of additional one-time funds will

be awarded separately from the maximum $300,000 award for each concept study

selected. Any funds awarded under this program to HBCUs or OMUs may not be

applied directly to the performance of the concept studies. The funds will be provided

directly to the HBCUs/OMUs and can only be used by the HBCUs/OMUs. Office of

Equal Opportunity Programs has the authority to make no awards if the proposals do

not meet their criteria or may make multiple awards. Proposals shall include

estimates of needed funds and descriptions of how the funds will be used to enhance

HBCUs/OMUs current and future capacities to compete in Earth science/applications

programs. Funding details should be at a level to allow evaluators to determine the

appropriateness of the request.

If the proposal includes the participation of HBCUs/OMUs, this section should

summarize the significant and meaningful participation of the HBCUs/OMUs. The

proposal should discuss the ways in which the HBCU/OMU contributions are integral

to the mission and are based on the demonstrated expertise and experience of the

HBCUs/OMUs involved. Identify how this funding will be used to augment the

capacities of these institutions to participate in Earth science/applications missions.

The funding request shall be reported in this section and not included in the proposal

cost section.

The institutions eligible to be considered as HBCUs/OMUs for the purposes

described in this proposal are Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Other

Minority Universities as defined and certified by the Department of Education. A list

of U.S. accredited post secondary minority institutions can be found at the Internet

address http://www.ed.gov/offices/OCR/99minin.html

L. APPENDICES

The following additional information is required to be supplied with the proposal as

Appendices and, as such, will not be counted within the specified page limit.

1. Resumes. Provide resumes or curriculum vitae for all named team members

identified in the proposal. Resumes or curriculum vitae should be no longer than

one page in length.

2. Letters of Endorsement. Letters of endorsement must be provided from all

organizations offering goods and/or services on a no-exchange-of-NASA-funds

basis, non-U.S. organizations providing hardware or software to the investigation,

Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Other Minority Universities for

which Office of Equal Opportunity Funding is proposed, the major participants in

the proposal, and the Launch Service provider, if the launch service is not
C-23

provided through a NASA contract. Letters of endorsement should be signed by

institutional and Government officials authorized to commit their organizations to

participation in the proposed investigation.

3. Statement of Work (SOW) and Funding Information: For investigations managed

from non-Government institutions, provide a SOW. For investigations managed

from Government institutions, provide a SOW as if the institution were nonGovernment. This SOW must include the requirement for a concept study report

that is described in the Guidelines for UnESS Concept Study Report available

through the UnESS Project Library. The SOW must include general task

statements for Phases Mission Definition and Design, Mission Detailed Design,

Mission Development and Launch, and Mission Operations and Data Analysis,

Archival and Dissemination for UnESS Investigations, and performance metrics.

All SOWs should include the following, as a minimum: Scope of Work,

Deliverables (including science/applications data), and Government

Responsibilities (as applicable). SOWs need not be more than a few pages in

length. Funding information and documentation must be provided which

identifies how funds are to be allocated among the organizations supporting the

investigation. Funding documents should be provided which are necessary to

allocate the correct amount of funds to each organization supporting the

investigation.

4. Certifications: The following certifications must be provided with the proposal.

a) A copy of the proposing institution’s annual Civil Rights Certification

form

b) Certification Regarding Drug-Free Workplace Requirements

c) Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other

Responsibility Maters Primary Covered Transactions

Certifications b and c originals above must be provided with the original proposal.

Copies of all certification must be provided in all proposal copies.

The following information may be provided.

1. References List: Proposals may provide, as an appendix, a list of reference

documents and materials used in the proposal. The documents and materials

themselves cannot be submitted, except as a part of the proposal, unless the

reverence is in publication and therefore not generally available.

2. Acronyms List: Proposals may provide, as an appendix, a list of acronyms used

in the proposal.

The following will be required in the Concept Study Report, and may be submitted in

draft form.
C-24

1. Preliminary Mission Definition and Requirements Agreement. A draft Mission

Definition and Requirements Agreement should be provided. An example of a

Mission Definition and Requirements Agreement is provided in the UnESS

Program Library.

2. Draft Incentive Plan. A draft Incentive Plan should be included with the Concept

Study Report. This Incentive Plan should outline contractual incentive features

for all major team members. Incentive Plans should include both performance

and cost incentives, as appropriate.

3. Relevant Experience and Past Performance. Relevant experience and past

performance (successes and failures) of the major team partners in meeting cost

and schedule constraints in similar projects within the last ten years should be

discussed. A description of each project, its relevance to the proposed

investigation, cost and schedule performance, and points of contact (including

addresses and phone numbers), should be provided.

4. Draft International Agreement(s). Draft International Agreement(s) are required

for all non-domestic partners in the investigation. Elements to be included in the

International Agreement can be found in the UnESS Project Library.

NO OTHER APPENDICES ARE PERMITTED.
C-25

University Earth System Science (UnESS) AO Form I

Investigation Summary Form

AO 99-OES-02

UnESS Announcement of Opportunity

Proposal No. __________

 NASA Use Only

Principal Investigator

Title First Name Middle Name Last Name

Department

Company/Institution

Street Address City/Town

State Zip/Postal Country

Telephone Fax E-Mail Address

Proposal Title

Science/Application Research Themes Supported (1 = primary; 2 = secondary)

[ ] Biology and Biogeochemistry of Ecosystems [ ] Food and Fiber

 and the Global Carbon Cycle [ ] Natural Resources

[ ] Global Water and Energy Cycle [ ] Disaster Management

[ ] Climate Variability and Prediction [ ] Environmental Quality

 [ ] Atmospheric Chemistry [ ] Urban and Infrastructure

 [ ] Solid Earth Science [ ] Human Health and Safety

Scientific Theme, Application Research or Commercial Development topic: ________________________ Abstract (Limit 150 words)
C-26

(this page intentionally blank)
C-27

University Earth System Science (UnESS) AO Form II

Investigation Summary Form (Page 2)

AO 99-OES-02

UnESS Announcement of Opportunity

Proposal No. __________

 NASA Use Only

Principal Investigator

Title First Name Middle Name Last Name

Proposal Title

Mission Mode

 [ ] Complete Mission

 [ ] Partial Mission

Cost

NASA ESE Cost $_______ Total Mission Cost $ _______

Anticipated Launch Vehicle:

Co-Investigator(s)

Name Institution E-mail

Page 2/2
C-28

(this page intentionally blank)
C-29

T A B L E C - 1 

T O T A L M I S S I O N C O S T F U N D I N G P R O F I L E T E M P L A T E 

F O R U N I V E R S I T Y E A R T H S Y S T E M S C I E N C E M I S S I O N 

(FY costs* in Real Year Dollars, Totals in Real Year and 1999 Dollars)

Item FY1 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5 ... FYn

Total

(Real Yr.)

Total

(FY 1999)

Concept Study +

Ground Data

System Dev +

Instrument A +

Instrument B +

Spacecraft +

MSI&T ** +

Launch services +

MO&DA*** +

Student

Involvement +

Other

(specify)  +

NASA ESE Cost $$$$$$$$ $

Goods and/or Services offered on a no-exchangeof-funds basis to:

Ground Data

System Dev

Instrument A +

Instrument B +

Spacecraft +

MSI&T**  +

Launch services

MO&DA

Student

Involvement

Other +

Goods and/or

Services offered

on a no-exchangeof-funds basis

(Total)

$$$$$$$$ $

Total Mission Cost $

+ Items included in $15M cost limit described in Section 3.11. Identify “Other “ items that apply to limit.

* Costs should include all costs including any fee

** MSI&T - Mission System Integration and Test and preparation for operations

*** Mission Operations and Data Analysis

**** Identify funding for Education and Public Outreach
C-30

(this page intentionally blank)
C-31

T A B L E C - 2 

N A S A N E W S T A R T I N F L A T I O N I N D E X 

Fiscal Year 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Inflation Rate 0% 3.2% 3.1% 3.1% 3.1% 3.1% 3.1%

Cumulative Inflation Index 1.0 1.032 1.064 1.097 1.131 1.166 1.202

Use an inflation rate of 3.1% for years beyond 2005.
(this page intentionally blank)
D-1

A P P E N D I X D 

C O N T E N T S O F T H E U N I V E R S I T Y E A R T H S Y S T E M S C I E N C E 

( U n E S S ) P R O J E C T L I B R A R Y 

The UnESS Project Library includes documents available electronically via the Internet,

as well as paper copy. Proposers are requested to access the documents electronically

where possible. Only limited paper copies of documents are available. Please note that

not all documents are available via the UnESS Project Library, but access information is

provided.

It is incumbent upon the proposer to ensure that the documents used in proposal

preparation are of the date and revision listed in the AO or this Appendix. Also, the

library will be updated when new or updated documents are made available; therefore,

it is incumbent upon the proposer to check the library often.

The UnESS Project Library is accessible on the World Wide Web at the URL address

http://uness.larc.nasa.gov/uness.

Requests for paper copies should be submitted in writing to:

UnESS Project Library

Mail Stop 160

Langley Research Center

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Hampton, VA 23681-0001

FAX: (757) 864-8894

E-mail: d.e.avery@larc.nasa.gov

NASA AGENCY REFERENCES:

1. NASA Strategic Plan

2. NASA Technology Plan

EARTH SCIENCE REFERENCES:

NASA

3. Earth Science Strategic Enterprise Plan 1998-2002

4. Harriss, R. et al, (1996), NASA Mission to Planet Earth Science Research Plan,

NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546
D-2

5. Mission to Planet Earth/Earth Observing System Reference Handbook

6. Science Strategy for the Earth Observing System

7. Science Plan for Earth Observing System

8. Report of the Workshop on NASA Earth Science Enterprise Post-2002 Missions

9. Understanding Our Changing Planet: 1998 Fact Book

10. Application Fact Book

11. Land Cover Land Use Change Program

12. MTPE Commercial Strategy

13. EOSDIS Potential User Conference Proceedings

14. In Situ Observations for the Global Observing Systems

15. Earth Science Integrated Technology Strategy (Currently under review)

16. Office of Earth Science Data and Information Policy Guidelines

17. Program Cost Elements (Currently under review)

18. Office of Earth Science Guidelines for Concept Study Report Preparation

EXTERNAL

19. National Academy of Sciences (1995) A Review of the U.S. Global Change

Research Program and NASA's Mission to Planet Earth/Earth Observing

System

20. Committee on Environment and National Resources (CENR) Research of the

National Science and Technology Council (1996) Our Changing Planet: the FY

98 U.S. Global Change Research Program, A Supplement to the President's

Fiscal Year 1998 Budget

TECHNICAL:

PROJECT MANAGEMENT

21. NASA Program and Project Management Processes and Requirements (NPG

7120.5A)

COMMUNICATION

22. CCSDS Standards
D-3

ENVIRONMENTAL TEST REQUIREMENTS

23. General Environmental Verification Specification for STS & ELV Payloads,

Subsystem and Components

EDUCATION:

24. MTPE Education Strategic Plan

25. NASA Implementation Plan for Education 1999 to 2003

LAUNCH SERVICES:

EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEHICLES (ELVs)

26. NPD 8610 Launch Services Risk Mitigation Policy for NASA, NASA-Sponsored

Payloads

27. Delta II Med-Lite Payload Planners Guide (Not Currently Available Electronically)

28. Small Expendable Launch Vehicle Services (SELVS) II (Not Currently Available

Electronically)

SHUTTLE

29. ESSP Space Shuttle Launch Opportunities

30. Shuttle Small Payloads Project Office

31. Spartan Project

32. Space Shuttle Future Flights

33. UnESS Shuttle Safety, Reliability, and Quality Assurance Document

INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION

34. International Space Station UnESS Research Opportunities
D-4

FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATIONS (FAR) ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS:

35. Federal Acquisitions Regulations (FAR) GENERAL SERVICES

ADMINISTRATION

36. NASA FAR Supplement Regulations

37. NASA Financial Management Manual

GENERAL REFERENCE INFORMATION:

38. EOSDIS Information

39. Standard Form SF1448 Proposal Cover Sheet

40. NASA's Mission Operations and Communication Services (SOMO)

41. Earth Science Systems Program Library (MTPE Library) (Information ONLY, no

documents are available from this site)

42. Mission Definition and Requirements Agreement - Example

43. Elements to be Included in Arrangements between U.S. Principal Investigators and

Cooperating foreign Parties Under the ESSP Program

44. ESSP Mission Confirmation Plan

45. HBCU/OMU Example Uses for Office of Equal Opportunity Funding

46. Examples of Education and Public Outreach Activities

47. U.S. Accredited Post Secondary Minority Institutions

48. Basics of Space Flight

RELIABILITY AND QUALITY ASSURANCE, MATERIALS AND EEE PARTS:

49. NASA/GSFC Office of Systems Safety and Mission Assurance

50. NASA Technical Standards

• NASA Technical Standard NASA-STD-8739.3, Soldered Electrical Connections

• NASA Technical Standard NASA-STD-8739.4, Crimping, Interconnecting

Cables, Harnesses, and Wiring
D-5

• NAS 5300.4(3J-1), Workmanship Standard for Staking and Conformal Coating of

Printing Wiring Boards and Electronic Assemblies (Not Currently Available

Electronically)

• NASA Technical Standard NASA-STD-8739.7, Electrostatic Discharge Control

(Excluding Electrically Initiated Explosive Devices)

• NASA Technical Standard NASA-STD-8739.5, Fiber Optic Terminations, Cable

Assemblies, and Installation

• NAS 5300.4(3M) Workmanship Standard for Surface Mount Technology (Not

Currently Available Electronically)

• ANSI/IPC-D-275 Design Standard for Rigid Printed Boards and Rigid Printed

Board Assemblies, Class 3 (Not Currently Available Electronically)

• IPC 6011 and IPC 6012, Class 3 as the basic specification requirements with

GSFC S-312-P-003B, Procurement Specification for Rigid Printed Wiring Boards

for Space Applications and other High Reliability Uses as a supplement (Not

Currently Available Electronically)

SAFETY:

51. NSTS 1700.7B, "Safety Policy and Requirements for Payloads Using the Space

Transportation System"

52. SPW S-100/KHB 1700.7B, "Space Shuttle Payload Ground Safety Handbook"

(Document does not include Appendices)

53. EWR 127-1, "Eastern and Western Range Safety Requirements"

54. NPD 8710.3 NASA Policy For Limiting Orbital Debris Generation

55. NSS 1740.14 Guidelines and Assessment Procedures for Limiting Orbital Debris

56. RSM-93, "Range Safety Manual for Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC)/Wallops

Flight Facility (WFF)" (Not Currently Available Electronically)

57. (SSD TD-0005) (currently Rev B), "Pegasus Design Safety Requirements

Document" (Not Currently Available Electronically)

58. (SSD TD-0018) (currently Rev A), "Pegasus Safety Requirements Document for

Ground Operations" (Not Currently Available Electronically)
D-6

OTHER NASA SERVICES:

59. NASA Space Operations Mission Office

60. NASA/GSFC Mission Management Office

61. NASA Tracking Resources Catalog

ISO 9000 Series:

62. The following ISO 9000 quality documents describe current national and NASA

standards of quality processes and procedures.

• American National Standard, "Quality Systems - Model for Quality Assurance in

Design, Development, Production, Installation, and Servicing," ANSI/ASQC

Q9001-1994.

• "Quality Management and Quality System Elements - Guidelines," ANSI/ASQC

Q9004-1-1994.

• "Quality Management and Quality Assurance Standards - Guidelines for Selection

and Use," ANSI/ASQC Q9000-1-1994.

• "ISO 9000 and NASA," Code Q presentation, April 24, 1995.

Note: The first three ISO 9000-related documents are copyrighted and cannot be

reproduced without appropriate compensation. For copies contact:

 American Society for Quality Control (ASQC)

 P.O. Box 3066

 Milwaukee, WI 53201-3066

 800-248-1946
E-1

A P P E N D I X E 

R E G U L A T I O N S G O V E R N I N G P R O C U R E M E N T O F 

F O R E I G N G O O D S O R S E R V I C E S 

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:

52.225-3 Buy American Act -- Supplies (January 1994)

52.225-7 Balance of Payments Program (April 1984)

52.225-9 Buy American Act -- Trade Agreements -- Balance of Payments Program

(January 1994)

52.225-10 Duty-Free Entry (April 1984)

52.225-11 Restrictions on Certain Foreign Purchases (May 1992)

52.225-17 Buy American Act -- Supplies Under European Community Agreement

(May 1995)

52.225-18 European Community Sanction for End Products (May 1995)

52.225-19 European Community Sanction for Services (May 1995)

52.225-21 Buy American Act -- North American Free Trade Agreement

Implementation Act -- Balance of Payments Program (January 1994)

The proposer is directed to the Federal Acquisition Regulation and the NASA FAR

Supplement for further information on these regulations.
(this page intentionally blank)
F-1

A P P E N D I X F 

CERTIFICATIONS

The following certifications must be provided with the proposal.

a) A copy of the proposing institution’s annual Civil Rights Certification form

b) Certification Regarding Drug-Free Workplace Requirements

c) Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility

Maters Primary Covered Transactions

Certifications b and c originals above must be provided with the original proposal.

Copies of all certification must be provided in all proposal copies.
F-2

(this page intentionally blank)
F-3

CERTIFICATION REGARDING DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE REQUIREMENTS

This certification is required by the regulations implementing the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988, 34 CFR

Part 85. Subpart F. The regulations, published in the January 31, 1989 Federal Register, require certification by

grantees, prior to award, that they will maintain a drug-free workplace. The certification set out below is a material

representation of fact upon which reliance will be placed when the agency determines to award the grant. False

certification or violation of the certification shall be grounds for suspension of payments, suspension or termination of

grants, or government-wide suspension or debarment (see 34 CFR Part 85, Sections 85.615 and 85.620).

I. GRANTEES OTHER THAN INDIVIDUALS

A. The grantee certifies that it will provide a drug-free workplace by:

(a) Publishing a statement notifying employees that the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing,

possession or use of a controlled substance is prohibited in the grantee's workplace and specifying the actions

that will be taken against employees for violation of such prohibition;

(b) Establishing a drug-free awareness program to inform employees about --

(1) The dangers of drug abuse in the workplace;

(2) The grantees policy of maintaining a drug-free workplace;

(3) Any available drug counseling, rehabilitation, and employee assistance programs; and

(4) The penalties that may be imposed upon employees for drug abuse violations occurring in the

workplace;

(c) Making it a requirement that each employee to be engaged in the performance of the grant be given a copy of

the statement required by paragraph (a);

(d) Notifying the employee in the statement required by paragraph (a) that, as a condition of employment under

the grant, the employee will

(1) Abide by the terms of the statement; and

(2) Notify the employer of any criminal drug statute conviction for a violation occurring in the workplace

no later than five days after such conviction;

(e) Notifying the agency within ten days after receiving notice under subparagraph (d) (2) from an employee or

otherwise receiving actual notice of such conviction;

(f) Taking one of the following actions, within 30 days of receiving notice under subparagraph (d) (2), with

respect to any employee who is so convicted --

(1) Taking appropriate personnel action against such an employee, up to and including termination; or

(2) Requiring such employee to participate satisfactorily in a drug abuse assistance or rehabilitation

program approved for such purposes by a Federal, State, or Local health, Law enforcement, or other

appropriate agency;

(g) Making a good faith effort to continue to maintain a drug-free workplace through implementation of

paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f)

B. The grantee shall insert in the space provided below the site(s) for the performance or work done in connection

with the specific grant:

Place of Performance (Street address, city, county, state, zip code)

______________________________________________________

______________________________________________________

______________________________________________________

______________________________________________________

Check _____ if there are workplaces on file that are not identified here.

II. GRANTEES WHO ARE INDIVIDUALS

The grantee certifies that, as a condition of the grant, he or she will not engage in the unlawful manufacture,

distribution, dispensing, possession or use of a controlled substance in conducting any activity with the grant.

Organization Name AO or NRA Number and Title

Printed Name and Title of Authorized Representative

Signature Date

Printed Principal Investigator Name Proposal Title
F-4

(this page intentionally blank)
F-5

CERTIFICATION REGARDING

DEBARMENT, SUSPENSION, AND OTHER RESPONSIBILITY MATTERS

PRIMARY COVERED TRANSACTIONS

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.

Organization Name AO or NRA Number and Title

Printed Name and Title of Authorized Representative

Signature Date

Printed Principal Investigator Name Proposal Title
(this page intentionally blank)
G-1

A P P E N D I X G 

D E F I N I T I O N S A N D A C R O N Y M S 

G.1 CONTINGENCY, RESERVE, AND MARGINS

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.

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 an estimated mass of 115 kg

including a mass reserve of 15 kg. There is no other payload on the ELV and the

ELV provider plans to allot to you the full capability of the vehicle, if needed.

The ELV capability is 200 kg. The mass reserve is 15/100 = 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. Your instrument is expected to use 50 watts, including 20% contingency.

You are allotted 75 watts by the satellite provider. Your reserve is 10 watts and

your margin is 25 watts, or 25/50 = 50%.

G.2 TECHNOLOGY READINESS LEVELS

Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) are a systematic metric/measurement system

that supports assessments of the maturity of a particular technology and the consistent

comparison of maturity between different types of technology. The TRL approach

has been used on-and-off in NASA space technology planning for many years and

was recently incorporated in the NASA Management Instruction (NMI 7100)

addressing integrated technology planning at NASA. The following are the nine

TRLs:

TRL 1 Basic principles observed and reported

TRL 2 Technology concept and/or application formulated

TRL 3 Analytical and experimental critical function and/or characteristic

proof-of-concept
G-2

TRL 4 Component and/or breadboard validation in laboratory environment

TRL 5 Component and/or breadboard validation in relevant environment

TRL 6 System/subsystem model or prototype demonstration in a relevant

environment (ground or space)

TRL 7 System prototype demonstration in a space environment

TRL 8 Actual system completed and “flight qualified” through test and

demonstration (ground or space)

TRL 9 Actual system “flight proven” through successful mission operations

Discussion of Each Level

The following paragraphs provide a descriptive discussion of each technology

readiness level, including an example of the type of activities that would characterize

each TRL.

TRL 1 Basic principles observed and reported

This is the lowest “level” of technology maturation. At this level, scientific research

begins to be translated into applied research and development. Examples might

include studies of basic properties of materials (e.g., tensile strength as a function of

temperature for a new fiber).

TRL 2 Technology concept and/or application formulated

Once basic physical principles are observed, then at the next level of maturation,

practical applications of those characteristics can be ‘invented’ or identified. For

example, following the observation of high critical temperature (HTc)

superconductivity, potential applications of the new material for thin film devices

(e.g., SIS mixers) and in instrument systems (e.g., telescope sensors) can be defined.

At this level, the application is still speculative: there is not experimental proof or

detailed analysis to support the conjecture.

TRL 3 Analytical and experimental critical function and/or characteristic proofof-concept

At this step in the maturation process, active research and development (R&D) is

initiated. This must include both analytical studies to set the technology into an

appropriate context and laboratory-based studies to physically validate that the

analytical predictions are correct. These studies and experiments should constitute

“proof-of-concept” validation of the applications/concepts formulated at TRL 2. For

example, a concept for High Energy Density Matter (HEDM) propulsion might

depend on slush or super-cooled hydrogen as a propellant: TRL 3 might be attained
G-3

when the concept-enabling phase/temperature/pressure for the fluid was achieved in a

laboratory.

TRL 4 Component and/or breadboard validation in laboratory environment

Following successful “proof-of-concept” work, basic technological elements must be

integrated to establish that the “pieces” will work together to achieve conceptenabling levels of performance for a component and/or breadboard. This validation

must devised to support the concept that was formulated earlier, and should also be

consistent with the requirements of potential system applications. The validation is

relatively “low-fidelity” compared to the eventual system: it could be composed of ad

hoc discrete components in a laboratory. For example, a TRL 4 demonstration of a

new ‘fuzzy logic’ approach to avionics might consist of testing the algorithms in a

partially computer-based, partially bench-top component (e.g., fiber optic gyros)

demonstration in a controls lab using simulated vehicle inputs.

TRL 5 Component and/or breadboard validation in relevant environment

At this, the fidelity of the component and/or breadboard being tested has to increase

significantly. The basic technological elements must be integrated with reasonably

realistic supporting elements so that the total applications (component-level, subsystem level, or system-level) can be tested in a ‘simulated’ or somewhat realistic

environment. From one-to-several new technologies might be involved in the

demonstration. For example, a new type of solar photovoltaic material promising

higher efficiencies would at this level be used in an actual fabricated solar array

‘blanket’ that would be integrated with power supplies, supporting structure, etc., and

tested in a thermal vacuum chamber with solar simulation capability.

TRL 6 System/subsystem model or prototype demonstration in a relevant

environment (ground or space)

A major step in the level of fidelity of the technology demonstration follows the

completion of TRL 5. At TRL 6, a representative model or prototype system or

system — which would go well beyond ad hoc, ‘patch-cord’ or discrete component

level breadboarding — would be tested in a relevant environment. At this level, if the

only ‘relevant environment’ is the environment of space, then the model/prototype

must be demonstrated in space. Of course, the demonstration should be successful to

represent a true TRL 6. Not all technologies will undergo a TRL 6 demonstration: at

this point the maturation step is driven more by assuring management confidence than

by R&D requirements. The demonstration might represent an actual system

application, or it might only be similar to the planned application, but using the same

technologies. At this level, several-to-many new technologies might be integrated

into the demonstration. For example, a innovative approach to high temperature/low

mass radiators, involving liquid droplets and composite materials, would be

demonstrated to TRL 6 by actually flying a working, sub-scale (but scaleable) model

of the system on a Space Shuttle or International Space Station ‘pallet.’ In this

example, the reason space is the ‘relevant’ environment is that microgravity plus
G-4

vacuum plus thermal environment effects will dictate the success/failure of the

system — and the only way to validate the technology is in space.

TRL 7 System prototype demonstration in a space environment

TRL 7 is a significant step beyond TRL 6, requiring an actual system prototype

demonstration in a space environment. It has not always been implemented in the

past. In this case, the prototype should be near or at the scale of the planned

operational system and the demonstration must take place in space. The driving

purposes for achieving this level of maturity are to assure system engineering and

development management confidence (more than for purposes of technology R&D).

Therefore, the demonstration must be of a prototype of that application. Not all

technologies in all systems will go to this level. TRL 7 would normally only be

performed in cases where the technology and/or subsystem application is mission

critical and relatively high risk. Example: the Mars Pathfinder Rover is a TRL 7

technology demonstration for future Mars micro-rovers based on that system design.

Example: X-vehicles are TRL 7, as are the demonstration projects planned in the

New Millennium spacecraft program.

TRL 8 Actual system completed and “flight qualified” through test and

demonstration (ground or space)

By definition, all technologies being applied in actual systems go through TRL 8. In

almost all cases, this level is the end of true ‘system development’ for most

technology elements. Example: this would include DDT&E through Theoretical First

Unit (TFU) for a new reusable launch vehicle. This might include integration of new

technology into an existing system. Example: loading and testing successfully a new

control algorithm into the onboard computer on Hubble Space Telescope while in

orbit.

TRL 9 Actual system “flight proven” through successful mission operations

By definition, all technologies being applied in actual systems go through TRL 9. In

almost all cases, the end of last ‘bug fixing’ aspects of true ‘system development.’

For example, small fixes/changes to address problems found following launch

(through ‘30 days’ or some related date). This might include integration of new

technology into an existing system (such operating a new artificial intelligence tool

into operational mission control at JSC). This TRL does not include planned product

improvement of ongoing or reusable systems. For example, a new engine for an

existing RLV would not start at TRL 9: such ‘technology’ upgrades would start over

at the appropriate level in the TRL system.
G-5

G.3 ACRONYMS

AO Announcement of Opportunity

BAHC Biospheric Aspects of the Hydrological Cycle

Co-I Co-Investigator

ELV Expendable Launch Vehicle

ESE Earth Science Enterprise

EXPRESS EXpedite the PRocessing of Experiments for the Space Station

FAR Federal Acquisition Regulation

GDS Ground Data System

GEWEX Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment

GFE Government Furnished Equipment

GSE Ground Support Equipment

HBCU Historically Black Colleges and Universities

IIP Instrument Incubator Program

ISS International Space Station

JPL Jet Propulsion Laboratory

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NFS NASA FAR Supplement (NFS)

NOI Notice of Intent

OES Office of Earth Science

OMU Other Minority University

PI Principal Investigator

PM Project Manager

SOW Statement of Work

TMCO Technical, Management, Cost and Other Opportunities

TRL Technology Readiness Level

UnESS University Earth System Science

WBS Work Breakdown Structure

WCRP World Climate Research Program

WORF Window Observational Research Facility
(this page intentionally blank)