NNH10ZDA007O Release Date June 7, 2010

Amended August 16, 2010

Announcement of 

Opportunity

DISCOVERY 2010

Notices of Intent Due Date: August 3, 2010

Proposal Due Date September 10, 2010

OMB Approval Number 2700-0085
- i -

ANNOUNCEMENT OF OPPORTUNITY

DISCOVERY PROGRAM

NNH10ZDA007O

FOREWORD

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Science Mission Directorate 

(SMD) is releasing this Announcement of Opportunity (AO) to solicit Principal Investigator (PI)

led planetary science investigations for the Discovery Program.

NASA expects to select one Discovery mission to proceed into Phase B (or an extended Phase 

A) and subsequent mission phases. The selected mission‘s launch readiness date shall be no later 

than the end of calendar year 2017.

The cap on the PI-Managed Mission Cost for a Discovery mission is $425M in Fiscal Year (FY) 

2010 dollars, not including the cost of the standard launch vehicle (LV) or any contributions

(Section 4.3.1 and Section 5.6.1). The cap may be increased through the optional use of specific 

NASA-developed technologies (Section 5.9.3).

Proposers should be aware of the following major changes in this AO from the Draft Discovery 

Program AO (NNH10ZDA003J) released for public comment on December 7, 2009.

The role of NASA Marshall Space Flight Center in the AO process is explicitly described 

(Section 4.1.2) as is the role of NASA Centers in public affairs for selected missions 

(Section 4.1.3).

The costs associated with National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) compliance, 

Nuclear Launch Safety Approval (NLSA) compliance, and nuclear launch services for 

missions proposing to use ASRGs are reduced to a firm, fixed cost of $20M (FY10) 

(Section 5.2.4.4).

The requirement for justifying the use of a frequency other than Ka-band for science data 

return is clarified (Section 5.2.5).

The latest allowable Launch Readiness Date (LRD) is December 31, 2017 (Section 5.9.1).

Launch vehicles in the ―medium‖ and ―high‖ performance classes with 4m fairings have 

been added as options (Section 5.9.2).

Proposed missions are required to be compatible with three families of launch vehicles: 

Atlas V, Delta IV, and Falcon 9 (Section 5.9.2).

The minimum requirements for taking advantage of technology-infusion cost cap incentives 

are detailed in a new document in the Program Library entitled In-Space Propulsion 

Technologies Minimum Demonstration Requirements (Section 5.9.3).

Missions to the Martian surface are not required to carry the Electra-lite UHF radio package 

(Section 5.9.4).

Proposers should be aware of the following major changes in this AO from the previous 

Discovery Program AO in 2006 (NNH06ZDA001O).
- ii -

The cost of standard launch services is not included within the cap on the PI-Managed 

Mission Cost (Section 4.3.1), but mission-unique launch services and the differential cost of 

more capable LVs than the standard LV will be included in the PI-Managed Cost 

(Section 5.9.2).

The Discovery Program requirement that returned space-exposed hardware be curated and 

that the costs for such curation be included in the PI-Managed Mission Cost has been added 

(Section 5.1.5.4)

Proposals may designate a Project Manager Alternate. At selection and subject to the 

approval of NASA, the Alternate may be named as the Project Manager (Section 5.3.2).

The minimum reserve level of 25% is now assessed against the Phase A-E cost 

(Section 5.6.3) rather than the Phase A-D cost.

Proposal of investigations enabled by the use of Advanced Stirling Radioisotope Generators 

(ASRGs) is allowed (Section 5.9.3). ASRGs are provided as Government Furnished 

Equipment (GFE).

New propulsion technology has been developed by NASA and is available for infusion into

Discovery missions (Section 5.9.3).

Investigations focused on Mars are allowed (Section 2.2).

Missions of Opportunity investigations are no longer solicited through the Discovery AO. 

Missions of Opportunity investigations may be solicited through the Stand Alone Mission of 

Opportunity Notice (SALMON) AO at a future date.

Letters of Commitment are not required from Co-investigators. However, all proposal team 

members must commit to the proposal through NSPIRES (Section 5.8.1.3).

In addition to the listed major changes, this AO incorporates a large number of additional 

changes relative to previous Discovery Program AOs and to the Draft Discovery Program AO 

including both policy changes and changes to proposal submission requirements. All proposers 

must read this AO carefully, and all proposals must comply with the requirements, constraints, 

and guidelines contained within this AO.

Amended July 13, 2010. New text is bold. Deleted text is struck through. [Amendment 1]

Requirement 89 has been amended to require, if applicable, that proposals describe 

how the proposed use of NEXT, AMBR, or aerocapture meets the minimum 

demonstration guidelines for the chosen technology.

Section 5.9.3, Infusion of NASA-developed technology, has been amended to revise the 

date for availability of ASRG units.

Requirement B-9 has been amended to reflect the Discovery-specific information that is 

required for the Electronic Cover Page in NSPIRES.

Amended August 2, 2010. New text is bold. [Amendment 2]

Requirement 89 and Requirement 90 have been amended to explicitly apply to 

proposals that use ASRGs (this was implied but not explicit).

Updated August 10, 2010, with new mailing address for proposal submission in 

Section 6.2.3. New text is bold. Deleted text is struck through.
- iii -

Amended August 16, 2010. New text is bold. [Amendment 3]

Requirement B-30A has been added to require provision of sufficient data to permit an 

independent assessment of the proposed mission design and trajectory. Recognizing the 

late date of this additional requirement, this additional data may be provided in a file 

or files on the CD containing the electronic version of the proposal. There is no 

requirement that this data also be included in the hardcopy proposal.

To accommodate the late date of this additional requirement, the proposal due date has 

been extended by one week. Proposals are due on September 10, 2010.
- iv -

ANNOUNCEMENT OF OPPORTUNITY

DISCOVERY PROGRAM

NNH10ZDA007O

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

1.1 Introduction........................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 NASA Safety Priorities......................................................................................................... 1

2. AO Objectives............................................................................................................................ 2

2.1 NASA Strategic Goals.......................................................................................................... 2

2.2 Discovery Program Goals and Objectives............................................................................ 2

2.3 Discovery Program Background........................................................................................... 3

3. Proposal Opportunity Period................................................................................................... 4

4. Policies Applicable to this AO.................................................................................................. 4

4.1 NASA Management Policies................................................................................................ 4

4.1.1 NASA Flight Program and Project Requirements......................................................... 4

4.1.2 NASA Program Management........................................................................................ 5

4.1.3 NASA Center Role in Public Affairs and Outreach ...................................................... 6

4.1.4 Mission Category and Payload Risk Classification....................................................... 7

4.1.5 Remediation, Termination, or Cancellation................................................................... 7

4.2 Participation Policies ............................................................................................................ 8

4.2.1 Eligibility to Participate in this AO ............................................................................... 8

4.2.2 Constraints on Investigations that are Candidates for Selection.................................... 9

4.2.3 Responsibility of Principal Investigator for Implementation......................................... 9

4.2.4 NASA Concurrence for Replacement(s) of Key Management Team Members ........... 9

4.3 Cost Policies........................................................................................................................ 10

4.3.1 PI-Managed Mission Cost............................................................................................ 10

4.3.2 Total Mission Cost....................................................................................................... 10

4.3.3 Enhanced PI-Managed Mission Cost........................................................................... 10

4.4 Data Policies ....................................................................................................................... 10

4.4.1 Data Analysis............................................................................................................... 10

4.4.2 Data Rights................................................................................................................... 11

4.4.3 Delivery of Data to Archive......................................................................................... 11

4.5 Project Management Policies.............................................................................................. 11

4.5.1 Independent Verification and Validation of Software ................................................. 11

4.5.2 Earned Value Management Plan.................................................................................. 12

4.5.3 Cost Analysis Data Requirement (CADRe) ................................................................ 12

5. Requirements and Constraints.............................................................................................. 12

5.1 Science Requirements......................................................................................................... 12

5.1.1 Scope of Proposed Investigation.................................................................................. 12

5.1.2 Traceability of Proposed Investigation ........................................................................ 12

5.1.3 Mission Science Objectives and Requirements........................................................... 13

5.1.4 Baseline and Threshold Science Missions................................................................... 13
- v -

5.1.5 Planetary Protection and Sample Return Policies........................................................ 14

5.1.6 Science Enhancement Options..................................................................................... 16

5.2 Technical Requirements...................................................................................................... 17

5.2.1 Complete Spaceflight Missions ................................................................................... 17

5.2.2 Accepted Management Processes and Practices.......................................................... 17

5.2.3 New Technologies/Advanced Developments.............................................................. 17

5.2.4 Environmental Review and Launch Approval............................................................. 18

5.2.5 Telecommunications, Tracking, and Navigation ......................................................... 21

5.2.6 Critical Event Coverage............................................................................................... 23

5.2.7 End-of-Mission Spacecraft Disposal Requirement...................................................... 23

5.2.8 Deviations from Recommended Payload Requirements ............................................. 24

5.2.9 Mission Operations Tools and Services....................................................................... 24

5.3 Management Requirements ................................................................................................ 24

5.3.1 Principal Investigator................................................................................................... 24

5.3.2 Project Manager........................................................................................................... 24

5.3.3 Management and Organization Experience and Expertise .......................................... 25

5.3.4 Risk Management ........................................................................................................ 25

5.3.5 Compliance with Procurement Regulations by NASA PI Proposals........................... 26

5.4 Science Team, Co-Investigators, and Collaborators........................................................... 26

5.4.1 Science Team............................................................................................................... 26

5.4.2 Co-Investigators........................................................................................................... 26

5.4.3 Collaborators................................................................................................................ 27

5.5 Small Business Participation and Education and Public Outreach..................................... 27

5.5.1 Small Business Participation........................................................................................ 27

5.5.2 Core E/PO Program ..................................................................................................... 28

5.5.3 Student Collaborations (optional)................................................................................ 29

5.6 Cost Requirements.............................................................................................................. 30

5.6.1 PI-Managed Mission Cost and Total Mission Cost ..................................................... 30

5.6.2 Cost of the Phase A Concept Study ............................................................................. 30

5.6.3 Cost Estimating Methodologies and Cost Reserve Management................................ 31

5.6.4 Work Breakdown Structure ......................................................................................... 31

5.6.5 Master Equipment List................................................................................................. 32

5.6.6 Full Cost Accounting for NASA Facilities and Personnel .......................................... 32

5.6.7 Contributions................................................................................................................ 34

5.7 Non-U.S. Participation Requirements................................................................................. 35

5.7.1 Overview of Non-U.S. Participation............................................................................ 35

5.7.2 General Guidelines Applicable to Non-U.S. Proposals and Proposals including NonU.S. Participation.................................................................................................................. 35

5.7.3 Agreements with Selected Non-U.S. Participants ....................................................... 37

5.7.4 Export Control Guidelines Applicable to Non-U.S. Proposals and Proposals including 

Non-U.S. Participation.......................................................................................................... 37

5.8 Additional Proposal Requirements..................................................................................... 37

5.8.1 Letters of Commitment................................................................................................ 37

5.8.2 Export Controlled Material in Proposals ..................................................................... 39

5.9 Program Specific Requirements and Constraints ............................................................... 39

5.9.1 Schedule Requirements................................................................................................ 39
- vi -

5.9.2 Launch Services........................................................................................................... 39

5.9.3 Infusion of NASA-developed Technology .................................................................. 41

5.9.4 Program Infrastructure Requirements for Mars Missions ........................................... 44

6. Proposal Submission Information......................................................................................... 45

6.1 Preproposal Activities......................................................................................................... 45

6.1.1 Preproposal Conference and Questions....................................................................... 45

6.1.2 Notice of Intent to Propose .......................................................................................... 46

6.1.3 Teaming Interest .......................................................................................................... 47

6.1.4 Program Library and Acquisition Home Page............................................................. 47

6.1.5 Point of Contact for Further Information..................................................................... 47

6.2 Proposal Preparation and Submission................................................................................. 47

6.2.1 Structure of the Proposal.............................................................................................. 47

6.2.2 Certifications................................................................................................................ 48

6.2.3 Submission of Proposals.............................................................................................. 48

6.2.4 Electronic Submission of Proposal Summary Information ......................................... 48

7. Proposal Evaluation, Selection, and Implementation.......................................................... 50

7.1 Overview of the Proposal Evaluation and Selection Process ............................................. 50

7.1.1 Evaluation Process....................................................................................................... 50

7.1.2 Categorization and Steering Process............................................................................ 50

7.1.3 Selection Process ......................................................................................................... 51

7.2 Evaluation Criteria .............................................................................................................. 51

7.2.1 Overview of Evaluation Criteria.................................................................................. 51

7.2.2 Scientific Merit of the Proposed Investigation ............................................................ 52

7.2.3 Scientific Implementation Merit and Feasibility of the Investigation ......................... 53

7.2.4 Feasibility of the Mission Implementation, Including Cost Risk ................................ 55

7.3 Selection Factors................................................................................................................. 57

7.4 Implementation of Selected Proposals................................................................................ 58

7.4.1 Notification of Selection.............................................................................................. 58

7.4.2 Award Administration and Funding ............................................................................ 58

7.4.3 Conduct of the Phase A Concept Study....................................................................... 59

7.4.4 Downselection of Investigations.................................................................................. 60

7.4.5 Confirmation of Investigations.................................................................................... 61

7.5 Opportunity for Debriefing of Nonselected Proposers....................................................... 61

7.6 Process for Appeals............................................................................................................. 61

7.6.1 Agency Procurement Ombudsman .............................................................................. 61

7.6.2 Protests......................................................................................................................... 62

8. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 62
- vii -

APPENDICES

Appendix A: General Instructions and Provisions.......................................................... A-1

Appendix B: Requirements for Proposal Preparation......................................................B-1

Appendix C: Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations........................................................... C-1

Appendix D: Program Library ........................................................................................ D-1

Appendix E: Requirements for Subsequent Phases.........................................................E-1

Appendix F: Compliance Checklist.................................................................................F-1

Appendix G: Requirements Crosswalk........................................................................... G-1

Appendix H: Certifications............................................................................................. H-1
- 1 -

ANNOUNCEMENT OF OPPORTUNITY

DISCOVERY PROGRAM

NNH10ZDA007O

1. Description of Opportunity

1.1 Introduction

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) issues this Announcement of 

Opportunity (AO) for the purpose of soliciting proposals for investigations to be implemented 

through its Discovery Program. All investigations proposed in response to this solicitation must 

support the goals and objectives of the Discovery Program (Section 2), must be implemented by 

Principal Investigator (PI) led investigation teams (Section 5.3.1), and must be implemented 

through the provision of complete spaceflight missions (Section 5.2.1).

Proposed investigations will be evaluated and selected through a two-step competitive process 

(Section 7). Step 1 is the solicitation, submission, evaluation, and selection of proposals prepared 

in response to this AO. As the outcome of Step 1, NASA intends to select approximately three

Step 1 proposals and issue awards (provide funding to NASA Centers and the Jet Propulsion 

Laboratory (JPL), award contracts to non-NASA institutions, or utilize other funding vehicles, as 

applicable) to the selected proposers to conduct Phase A concept studies and submit Concept 

Study Reports to NASA. Step 2 is the preparation, submission, evaluation, and continuation 

decision (downselection) of the Concept Study Reports. As the outcome of Step 2, NASA 

intends to continue a single investigation into the subsequent phases of mission development for 

flight and operations.

This AO, particularly Section 5, presents the requirements and constraints that apply to proposals 

that are to be submitted in response to this AO. Appendix B contains additional requirements on 

the format and content of the Step 1 proposal. Appendix D lists the contents of the Program 

Library while Appendix E.1 lists the Program Library documents that specify requirements for 

Phase A concept studies, and Appendix E.2 lists the Program Library documents that specify 

requirements that will apply to subsequent phases of investigations that are selected for 

implementation. These documents are intended to provide guidance for investigations selected in 

Step 1 and Step 2, respectively; they are specifically not intended to impose requirements on 

Step 1 proposals.

1.2 NASA Safety Priorities

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

damage to or loss of equipment or property, or damage to the environment. NASA‘s safety 

priority is to protect: (1) the public, (2) astronauts and pilots, (3) the NASA workforce (including 

NASA employees working under NASA instruments), and (4) high-value equipment and 

property.
- 2 -

2. AO Objectives

2.1 NASA Strategic Goals

One of NASA‘s strategic goals is to ―Advance scientific knowledge of the origin and history of 

the solar system, the potential for life elsewhere, and the hazards and resources present as 

humans explore space.‖ Further information on NASA‘s strategic goals may be found in NASA 

Policy Directive (NPD) 1001.0, The 2006 NASA Strategic Plan, available through the Program 

Library (Appendix D).

The NASA Science Mission Directorate (SMD) is addressing this strategic goal by conducting a 

program of planetary science designed to answer the following science questions:

How did the Sun‘s family of planets and minor bodies originate?

How did the Solar System evolve to its current diverse state?

What are the characteristics of the solar system that lead to the origin of life?

How did life begin and evolve on Earth and has it evolved elsewhere in the solar system?

What are the hazards and resources in the solar system environment that will affect the 

extension of human presence in space?

In answering these questions, the following research objectives are addressed:

Understand the processes that determine the history and future of habitability in the solar 

system, including the origin and evolution of Earth‘s biosphere and the character and extent 

of prebiotic chemistry on Mars and other worlds.

Identify and investigate past or present habitable environments on Mars and other worlds, 

and determine if there is or ever has been life elsewhere in the solar system.

Explore the space environment to discover potential hazards to humans and to search for 

resources that would enable human presence.

Further information on the goals and objectives of NASA‘s planetary science program may be 

found in The Science Plan for NASA’s Science Mission Directorate (2007-2016) and in the 2006 

Solar System Exploration Roadmap, available through the Program Library.

2.2 Discovery Program Goals and Objectives

The goal of NASA‘s Discovery Program is to provide frequent flight opportunities for high 

quality, high value, focused, planetary science investigations that can be accomplished under a 

not-to-exceed cost cap.

By conducting a series of planetary science investigations, NASA will provide a mechanism by 

which pressing questions in planetary science may be addressed, permitting a steady 

improvement in our understanding of planetary systems and the processes that affect them. The 

frequent, steady nature of the investigations will ensure a continuing stream of fresh scientific 

data to the planetary science community, thus helping to maintain the excellence of the U.S. 

planetary science program and to inspire the next generation of investigators.
- 3 -

The Discovery Program strives to:

advance scientific knowledge and exploration of the elements of our Solar System;

add scientific data, maps, and other products to the Planetary Data System archive for all 

scientists to access;

announce scientific progress and results in the peer-reviewed literature, popular media, 

scholastic curricula, and materials that can be used to inspire and motivate students to 

pursue careers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics;

expand the pool of well-qualified Principal Investigators and Program Managers for 

implementation of future missions in Discovery and other programs, through current 

involvement as Co-Investigators and other team members; and

implement technology advancements proven in related programs.

These goals and objectives are also articulated in the Discovery Program Plan, which can be 

found in the Program Library.

Investigations may target any body in the Solar System, including Mars and Earth‘s Moon, but 

excluding the Earth and Sun, in order to advance the objectives outlined in Section 2.1. 

Investigations of extra-solar planets are not solicited in this AO.

2.3 Discovery Program Background

The Discovery Program was initiated in 1992 as a way to ensure frequent access to space for 

planetary science investigations. Previous Discovery Program AOs were released in 1994, 1996, 

1998, 2000, 2004, and 2006. The completed missions in the Discovery Program are NEAR, Mars 

Pathfinder, Lunar Prospector, Genesis, Deep Impact, and Stardust. CONTOUR was lost shortly 

after its launch in 2002. The four missions currently in development, operation, or analysis phase 

are MESSENGER, Dawn, Kepler, and GRAIL. Three missions of opportunity, Aspera-3, 

Netlander, and the Moon Mineralogy Mapper, have been selected. Netlander was terminated 

before launch. Aspera-3 is currently operating on ESA‘s Mars Express. The Moon Mineralogy 

Mapper has completed operations on ISRO‘s Chandrayaan-1. Two missions of opportunity have 

been selected under the Stand-Alone Mission of Opportunity Notice (SALMON) AO and 

incorporated into the Discovery Program: LaRa and Strofio. Additionally, three investigations 

reusing existing spacecraft are in operation: EPOCh and DIXI are hosted by the Deep Impact 

spacecraft and have been joined to produce the EPOXI mission, and Stardust-NExT is hosted on 

the Stardust spacecraft. Information about all previous and current Discovery missions may be 

found at http://discovery.nasa.gov/missions.html.
- 4 -

3. Proposal Opportunity Period

This solicitation has a single submission deadline. The following schedule describes the major 

milestones for this AO:

AO Release Date.................................................................June 7, 2010

Preproposal Conference ......................................................See Section 6.1.1

Notice of Intent to Propose Deadline..................................August 3, 2010

[Amended August 16, 2010. Due date changed to September 10, 2010.]

Proposal Submittal Deadline at 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time September 10, 2010

Letters of Commitment due (with proposal)..................September 10, 2010

Proposal Submittal Deadline at 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time ....September 3, 2010

Letters of Commitment due (with proposal).......................September 3, 2010

Step 1 Selections announced (target)..................................April 2011

Initiate Phase A Concept Studies (target)...........................May 2011

Phase A Concept Study Reports due (target)......................February 2012

Downselection of investigation(s) for flight (target) ..........June 2012

Launch Readiness Date.......................................................NLT December 31, 2017

All proposals, U.S. and non-U.S., must be received before the proposal submittal deadline. Those 

received after the deadline will be treated in accordance with Appendix A, Section VII.

Requirement 1. Proposals submitted in response to this solicitation shall be delivered no later 

than the Proposal Submittal Deadline. Proposals shall be delivered to the Address for Submittal 

of Proposals given in Section 6.2.3.

Requirement 2. Proposal submission shall be accompanied by electronic submission of 

proposal summary data no later than the Proposal Submittal Deadline following the instructions 

for submission of proposal summary data provided in Section 6.2.4.

4. Policies Applicable to this AO

4.1 NASA Management Policies

The following policies will impose requirements on selected missions, for which planning may 

need to be considered and described as part of the proposal process. These requirements are not 

levied on Step 1 proposals.

4.1.1 NASA Flight Program and Project Requirements

Proposals selected in response to this AO will be implemented in accordance with NASA 

mission management processes. NASA mission management processes, as defined by NASA 

Interim Directive (NID) NM 7120-811, NASA Space Flight Program and Project Management 

Requirements, are Formulation, Approval, Implementation, and Evaluation. The NASA mission 

management processes are subdivided as follows:

 

1

 NM 7120-81 is the NASA Interim Directive (NID) for NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 7120.5D. Effective 

September 22, 2009, NM 7120-81 is the governing NPR until NPR 7120.5 is formally revised.
- 5 -

Formulation is divided into:

Phase A – Concept Study and Technology Development; and

Phase B – Preliminary Design and Technology Completion.

Approval is the Confirmation process for transitioning into Implementation.

Implementation is divided into:

Phase C – Final Design and Fabrication;

Phase D – System Assembly, Integration and Test, and Launch (extending through inorbit checkout);

Phase E – Operations and Sustainment; and

Phase F – Closeout.

Evaluation is the ongoing independent review and assessment of the project‘s status during both 

Formulation and Implementation as described in NM 7120-81, which may be found in the 

Program Library.

A Key Decision Point (KDP) occurs before the project is approved to begin the next phase of 

development; KDPs are defined in NM 7120-81. For missions selected as a result of this AO, 

KDP-A is the selection of a Step-1 proposal for a Phase A concept study, KDP-B is the 

downselection of a mission to enter Phase B following evaluation of Concept Study Reports, 

KDP-C is the culmination of the Confirmation process, KDP-D is a soft transition that occurs 

after the Systems Integration Review, KDP-E is the handoff from development to operations 

following in-orbit checkout (generally 30 to 90 days after launch), and KDP-F is the decision to 

terminate operations after completion of the mission. Scientific and other analyses, including 

data analysis and preliminary analysis of returned samples, may continue under project funding 

in Phase F. If the decision at downselection is to maintain the selected investigation in an 

extended Phase A, then a separate KDP-B will be required.

4.1.2 NASA Program Management

Owing to the significant expenditure of Government funds on these space flight investigations, 

as well as to their expected complexity, NASA intends to maintain an essential degree of insight 

into mission development; NASA will exercise essential oversight to ensure that the 

implementation is responsive to NASA requirements and constraints. NASA requirements and 

constraints are spelled out in NM 7120-81, the Discovery Program Safety and Mission 

Assurance Guidelines and Requirements document, and other NASA requirements documents 

available in the NASA Online Directives Information System (NODIS, http://nodis.hq.nasa.gov/) 

and in the Program Library. To that end, the Associate Administrator for SMD has established a

Discovery Program Office at the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center to be responsible for 

project oversight. The Discovery Program Manager at Marshall Space Flight Center reports to 

the Discovery Program Director at NASA Headquarters. Additional details about the program 

office staffing, structure, and goals can be found in the Discovery Program Plan, available 

through the Program Library.
- 6 -

NM 7120-81 defines project management responsibilities, and it presumes that project 

management is assigned to a NASA Center or JPL. If an organization other than a NASA Center 

or JPL is proposed and selected to provide project management for an investigation, then the 

NASA Center‘s project management responsibilities under NM 7120-81 will be assigned to the 

implementing project management organization. That organization must be prepared to carry out 

these responsibilities. In such cases, the Discovery Program Office at the NASA Marshall Space 

Flight Center will retain the Independent Technical Authority (ITA) that would otherwise be 

invested in an implementing Center or JPL.

The Discovery Program Safety and Mission Assurance Guidelines and Requirements document, 

available through the Program Library, will apply to investigations that are selected for Phase A 

concept studies. Selected investigations that reside at institutions that have NASA-approved 

safety and mission assurance (S&MA) programs may utilize their own institutional practices in 

lieu of the guidelines and requirements in this document. Although this document may impose 

requirements on selected investigations, it does not impose requirements, either implicitly or 

explicitly, on Step-1 proposals.

In addition to its role as the site of the Discovery Program Office, NASA Marshall Space Flight 

Center (MSFC) is eligible to participate in proposals that are submitted in response to this AO. 

The Discovery Program Office will have access to the AO before it is released; this is necessary 

so that the Discovery Program Office can review the AO and ensure that it correctly describes 

the post-selection project management processes. Other than that, the Discovery Program Office 

plays no role in the AO process; specifically they play no role in defining the scientific scope of 

the AO, writing the AO, evaluating proposals, or selecting proposals. The Science Mission 

Directorate at NASA Headquarters will manage the evaluation and selection process. In order to 

manage MSFC‘s two roles, SMD has established functional and organizational firewalls between 

the Discovery Program Office and those parts of MSFC that might participate in proposals. 

These firewalls ensure that personnel identified as supporting the Discovery Program Office and 

the AO process will protect all non-public information from all proposers, including those at 

MSFC, and will be free of financial and other conflicts of interest with proposers.

4.1.3 NASA Center Role in Public Affairs and Outreach

Successful media relations activities require close cooperation between NASA and the selected 

investigations. NASA Centers and JPL have specific expertise in media relations and/or public 

affairs, especially as they pertain to Earth and space science missions. All selected investigations 

will coordinate media relations and/or public affairs with a NASA Center or JPL. If a selected 

investigation does not include a NASA Center or JPL as part of their investigation team, the 

investigation will utilize the public affairs guidance and resources of the Discovery Program 

Office at NASA Marshall Space Flight Center. 

NASA is to be informed in a timely manner of any newsworthy mission event or issue before 

public release of information. Strategies for using new and social media also will be developed 

collaboratively to ensure common and consistent messaging will occur in a timely manner. 

NASA and the selected investigation will establish and maintain a detailed coordination media 

relations plan and communications process.
- 7 -

Selected investigations also must work with NASA to ensure their mission website follows 

NASA requirements for incorporating content for the agency's primary public website at 

http://www.nasa.gov/. NASA, and through NASA the selected investigation, is required under 

the Information Quality Act and associated guidelines to maximize the quality, objectivity, 

utility, and integrity of information and services provided to the public.

4.1.4 Mission Category and Payload Risk Classification

NM 7120-81, NASA Space Flight Program and Project Management Requirements, establishes 

guidelines for categorizing NASA missions based on the estimated total mission cost and 

mission priority level. The mission categorization guidelines are given in Section 2.1.5 and 

Table 2-1 of NM 7120-81.

NPR 8705.4, Risk Classification for NASA Payloads, establishes baseline criteria that enable a 

definition of the risk classification level for NASA payloads. It defines four payload risk levels 

or classes, A thru D, and provides guidance for programmatic options during development based 

on this class. The requirements for each class are specified in Appendix B of NPR 8705.4.

Historically, Discovery missions have been determined to be Category 2 missions (per 

NM 7120-81) with Class B or Class C payloads (per NPR 8705.4). Investigations using nuclear 

power sources, however, are Category 1 missions by regulation (see NM 7120-81).

Requirement 3. Based on the criteria for mission categorization in NM 7120-81 and risk 

classification in NPR 8705.4, proposers shall propose a mission categorization and risk 

classification for their proposed mission and incorporate appropriate work effort and support in 

their proposals accordingly.

Proposed categorization and risk classification will be confirmed or modified by the NASA 

Decision Authority at selection points KDP-A and KDP-B.

4.1.5 Remediation, Termination, or Cancellation

Any alteration of a mission that renders it unable to accomplish one or more of its baseline 

science objectives will be regarded as a descope of the investigation. NASA will review any such 

descoped set of achievable science objectives to ensure that the investigation remains at or above 

the Threshold Science Mission (see Section 5.1.4 of this AO). A descope made necessary by the 

PI's inability to remain within budget or schedule, or failure at any time during development and 

implementation to maintain a level of science return at or above the Threshold Science Mission, 

can result in mission cancellation accompanied by appropriate contract action, which may 

involve termination.

During Phase A, each selected PI will conduct a concept study. The Phase A Concept Study 

Report must include a commitment by the PI for the PI-Managed Mission Cost, schedule, and 

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

performance commitments made in the Phase A Concept Study Report appear to be in peril, the 

investigation will be subject to termination or cancellation.
- 8 -

During Phase B, each selected PI will work with NASA to develop top-level science and 

technical performance requirements. Each PI will also work with NASA to establish a set of 

performance metrics for project evaluation with NASA. These will include cost, schedule, and 

others, as appropriate.

Once an investigation has been confirmed for implementation, failure of the PI to maintain 

reasonable progress within committed schedule and cost, and/or failure to operate within other 

applicable constraints, may be cause for NASA to convene a termination review. The Associate 

Administrator (AA) for the Science Mission Directorate may also call for a termination review 

any time an excursion above the agreed upon mission cost in Phase C through Phase E occurs, or 

is projected to occur, by the PI, the implementing organization, or NASA. The objective of such 

a review is to determine whether remedial actions, including changes in management structure 

and/or key management team members, would better enable the project to operate within 

established cost, schedule, and/or technical constraints. If a termination review determines that 

no remedy is likely to improve matters, NASA may consider mission cancellation and/or 

contract termination.

4.2 Participation Policies

4.2.1 Eligibility to Participate in this AO

Prospective investigators from any category of organizations or institutions, U.S or non-U.S., are 

welcome to respond to this solicitation. Specific categories of organizations and institutions that 

are welcome to respond include, but are not limited to, educational, industrial, and not-for-profit 

organizations, Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs), University 

Affiliated Research Centers (UARCs), NASA Centers, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), and 

other Government agencies.

NASA contracts for the services of outside, non-Governmental organizations for support in 

evaluating proposals (see Section 7.1.1). Organizational conflicts of interest between proposing, 

evaluating, and executing organizations must be avoided. The approach to avoiding 

organizational conflicts of interest depends on the unique characteristics and roles of each 

evaluating organization. For non-Governmental organizations, this requires limiting the extent to 

which the outside evaluating organizations can participate in proposal development and/or 

execution of the work proposed. NASA has two general classes of limitation for organizations.

The NASA contract with Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) for evaluation 

support under this AO creates an unmitigatable organizational conflict of interest for SAIC in the 

event that any business unit of SAIC has a proposed role as prime contractor, subcontractor, or 

participating organization. Because of this organizational conflict of interest, SAIC is precluded 

from participating in any capacity in support of a respondent under this AO. 

The NASA contract with The Aerospace Corporation (Aerospace) for evaluation support under 

this AO creates an organizational conflict of interest for Aerospace in the event that any business 

unit of Aerospace has a proposed role as prime contractor, subcontractor, or participating 

organization. Because of this organizational conflict of interest, Aerospace is precluded from 

responding to this AO, from participating as a member of any proposal performance team, and 

from being proposed as the recipient of any work awarded under this AO.
- 9 -

The Aerospace Corporation is a FFRDC, and it has unique capabilities and skills that are made 

available to the U.S. Government and other organizations under the terms of its sponsoring 

agreement with the U.S. Air Force. It is in NASA‘s best interest that, where appropriate and 

where it does not create organizational conflicts of interest, respondents to this AO be permitted 

to take advantage of these same capabilities and skills to improve their proposals. Under 

appropriate circumstances, respondents to this AO may contract with Aerospace for supporting 

analysis services, including cost analysis, engineering analysis, and resource analysis, if it is 

deemed in the best interest of the Government and only under the following conditions.

(i) Aerospace is precluded from responding to this AO, from participating as a member of 

any proposal performance team, and from being proposed as the recipient of any work 

awarded under this AO. Aerospace is precluded from providing or developing hardware, 

including any elements or components, that will be proposed for any work awarded under 

this AO. Aerospace should not be referenced in the proposal, nor should the evaluating 

organization‘s analysis be identified in the proposal.

(ii) Aerospace has established firewalls within the Aerospace organization to prevent 

conflicts of interest between Aerospace organizational units and employees supporting 

NASA‘s evaluation of proposals and Aerospace organizational units and employees 

supporting proposal efforts. Any Aerospace supporting analysis services, including 

supporting cost analysis and supporting engineering analysis, provided to a proposal team 

must comply with the firewall that has been established by Aerospace and is described in 

a NASA approved Organizational Conflict of Interest Avoidance Plan (OCIAP).

(iii) The proposer shall fully describe in a memorandum submitted to NASA at the same time 

as the proposal all of the supporting analysis services provided by Aerospace to the 

proposing team. The memorandum shall not be bound into the proposal itself, but must 

be a separate document. This memorandum must describe all of the work that Aerospace 

provided, must identify any work products of Aerospace that are included in the proposal 

or its appendices, and must list all Aerospace employees who participated in the 

Aerospace work.

4.2.2 Constraints on Investigations that are Candidates for Selection

Only those investigations that propose to meet cost, schedule, and launch vehicle requirements 

that do not exceed the constraints identified in this AO and that demonstrate sufficient margins, 

reserves, and resiliency to ensure mission success within committed cost and schedule, will be 

considered for selection.

4.2.3 Responsibility of Principal Investigator for Implementation

The primary responsibility for implementing and executing selected investigations rests with the

PI, who will have significant latitude to accomplish the proposed objectives within committed 

schedule and financial constraints. This responsibility, however, will be exercised with essential 

NASA oversight to ensure that the implementation is responsive to the requirements and 

constraints of the Discovery Program.

4.2.4 NASA Concurrence for Replacement(s) of Key Management Team Members

Any replacement of key management team members (including, but not limited to, the PI and the 

Project Manager (PM)) requires concurrence by NASA.
- 10 -

4.3 Cost Policies

4.3.1 PI-Managed Mission Cost

PI-Managed Mission Cost is defined as the funding that the Discovery Program will be expected 

to provide to the PI‘s implementation team for the development and execution of the proposed 

project, Phases A through F. It includes any reserves applied to the development and operation of 

the mission, as well. It also includes any costs that are required to be counted against the PIManaged Mission Cost, even though the PI is not directly responsible for those costs (e.g., 

NASA-provided telecom and network services described in Section 5.2.5). The PI-Managed 

Mission Cost is capped (see Section 5.6.1).

Examples of costs to be included in the PI-Managed Mission Cost, unless contributed, are: 

development activities (e.g., instrument development, spacecraft development, management, 

software, testing); launch services outside of the standard services provided by NASA; 

Education/Public Outreach, including Student Collaborations in excess of the student 

collaboration incentive (see Section 5.5.3); subcontracting costs, including fees; science Co-Is 

and all other personnel required to conduct the investigation, analyze data and publish results, 

and deliver data in an acceptable format to an approved archive; insurance; NASA-provided 

telecommunications, tracking, and/or navigation support; any project-specific costs (e.g., 

curation of returned samples); and all labor, including contractor and Civil Servant (NASA and 

non-NASA).

4.3.2 Total Mission Cost

Total Mission Cost is defined as the PI-Managed Mission Cost (see Section 4.3.1), plus any 

Student Collaboration costs up to the student collaboration incentive (see Section 5.5.3), plus any 

additional costs that are contributed or provided in any way other than through the Discovery

Program (see Section 5.6.7). The Total Mission Cost will define the total value of the baseline 

investigation, not including the cost of standard launch vehicle and launch services.

4.3.3 Enhanced PI-Managed Mission Cost

Enhanced PI-Managed Mission Cost is defined as the funding that the Discovery Program will 

be expected to provide to the PI‘s implementation team for the development and execution of the 

proposed project, including optional components such as any Student Collaboration or Science 

Enhancement option (see Section 5.1.6). The Enhanced PI-Managed Mission Cost is the PIManaged Mission Cost (see Section 4.3.1), plus any Student Collaboration costs up to the 

student collaboration incentive (see Section 5.5.3), plus any Science Enhancement Options (see 

Section 5.1.6).

4.4 Data Policies

4.4.1 Data Analysis

The PI will be responsible for analysis of the mission data (including returned samples) 

necessary to complete the proposed science objectives and for timely publication of initial 

scientific results in refereed scientific journals, as part of their mission operations (Phase E) or 

post-mission (Phase F) activities. Data analysis and preliminary analysis of returned samples 

may be continued during Phase F.
- 11 -

4.4.2 Data Rights

By NASA policy, all science data returned from NASA missions are immediately in the public 

domain. A short period of exclusive access may be proposed for data calibration and validation, 

but a compelling justification for it must be demonstrated. Any period of exclusive access should 

be the minimum that is consistent with optimizing science return from the mission. Barring 

exceptional circumstances, it may not exceed six months.

4.4.3 Delivery of Data to Archive

Mission data will be made fully available to the public through a NASA-approved data archive 

(e.g., the Planetary Data System, Atmospheric Data Center, High Energy Astrophysics Science 

Archive Research Center, etc.), in usable form, in the minimum time necessary but, barring 

exceptional circumstances, within six months following its collection. The PI will be responsible 

for collecting the scientific, engineering, and ancillary information necessary to validate and 

calibrate the data prior to delivery to the archive.

Archival data products will include low-level (raw) data, high-level (processed) data, and derived 

data products such as maps, ancillary data (including valid SPICE (spacecraft, planet, instrument, 

C-matrix, events) kernels related to spacecraft, instrument, and body information), calibration 

data (ground and in flight), documentation, related software, and/or other tools or parameters that 

are necessary to interpret the data. The PI will be responsible for generating data products that 

are documented, validated, and calibrated in physical units that are usable by the scientific 

community at large.

NASA data archives have budgets to support core activities, including the basic ingestion and 

review of new data. Proposed mission data archiving plans and budgets must be consistent with 

the policies and practices of the appropriate NASA data archive. For the Planetary Data System 

(PDS), guides to the archiving process and tools for data archive preparation may be downloaded 

from the PDS website (http://pds.nasa.gov/tools/index.shtml). Information on SPICE kernels 

may be found at the Navigation and Ancillary Information Facility (NAIF) of the PDS 

(http://naif.jpl.nasa.gov/naif/). For other archives, proposers should contact the archive directly 

to obtain information regarding the appropriate policies and practices. Proposals may include 

funding for up to one year after end-of-operations for the generation and archiving of derived 

data products. This funding will be included in the capped PI-Managed Mission Cost.

4.5 Project Management Policies

4.5.1 Independent Verification and Validation of Software

The NASA Chief Safety and Mission Assurance Officer has the authority to select software 

projects to which Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) is to be applied, as outlined 

in NPD 2820.1, NASA Software Policy. The selection of projects is based on prioritized 

recommendations from the Agency's IV&V Board of Directors. Proposal teams are encouraged 

to contact the Chief for Plans and Programs at the NASA IV&V Facility to gain a preliminary 

understanding of the potential level of safety and mission critical software that their project will 

contain and the associated project system software risks. If the project is selected to receive 

IV&V services, the costs for these services will be covered within the allocation to the NASA 

IV&V Program and need not be included in the proposed PI-Managed Mission Cost. Selected 
- 12 -

investigations will have to spend project funds only to provide required data and information to 

the IV&V facility. The Chief for Plans and Programs at the NASA IV&V Facility is Christina 

Moats (Telephone: 304-367-8340; E-mail: christina.d.moats@nasa.gov).

4.5.2 Earned Value Management Plan

NM 7120-81, Sections 4.6.2.c(1) and 4.7.2.c(1), requires projects to implement earned value 

management (EVM) in Phase C through Phase E. The requirements for EVM implementation are 

given in NM 7120-81, Appendix F.3, Section 3.1). One requirement is that, for contracts and 

subcontracts valued at $50M or more, the contractor EVM system must be formally validated by 

the cognizant Federal management agency.

4.5.3 Cost Analysis Data Requirement (CADRe)

NASA has established a Cost Analysis Data Requirement (CADRe) in NM 7120-81, 

Section 4.5.2.c(3), that will apply to investigations selected through this AO. Support contractors 

funded directly by NASA Headquarters will perform the actual development of the CADRe; the 

costs for these services need not be included in the proposed PI-managed Mission Cost. Selected 

investigations will have to spend project funds only to collect existing documentation and 

transmit it to the CADRe support contractor at selected major milestones and then to review the 

completed CADRe for completeness and accuracy.

5. Requirements and Constraints

This section provides general requirements on Step 1 proposals. Supplemental requirements on 

standard proposal content and format are provided in Appendix B.

5.1 Science Requirements

5.1.1 Scope of Proposed Investigation

A goal is understood to have a broad scope (e.g., discover whether life exists elsewhere in the 

Universe), while an objective is understood as a more narrowly focused part of a strategy to 

achieve a goal (e.g., identify specific chemical, mineralogical, or morphological features on Mars 

that provide evidence of past or present life there).

Investigations may target any body in the Solar System, including Mars and Earth‘s Moon, but 

excluding the Earth and Sun, in order to advance the objectives outlined in Section 2. 

Investigations of extra-solar planets are not solicited in this AO.

Requirement 4. Proposals shall describe a science investigation with goals and objectives that 

address NASA‘s and the Discovery Program‘s science objectives as described in Section 2.

5.1.2 Traceability of Proposed Investigation

The Discovery Program is intended to perform focused science investigations that conclude with 

papers published in peer-reviewed archival journals, as well as deposition of appropriately 

reduced and calibrated data in designated data archives (see Section 4.4.3)
- 13 -

Requirement 5. Proposals shall clearly state the relationship between the science objectives, 

the data to be returned, and the instrument complement to be used in obtaining the required data 

(see Appendix B, Section D, for additional detail).

Requirement 6. Proposals shall include a plan to calibrate (both pre-flight and in-flight), 

analyze, publish, and archive the data returned, and shall demonstrate, analytically or otherwise, 

that sufficient resources have been allocated to carry out that plan within the proposed mission 

cost. The data plan shall discuss and justify any period of exclusive access to data (see 

Appendix B, Section E, for additional detail).

5.1.3 Mission Science Objectives and Requirements

The ability to determine whether a proposed mission can successfully carry out the proposed 

science investigation depends on a crisp, well-formulated articulation of the proposed science 

objectives, the information and steps needed to bring closure to the objectives, and the 

measurements that must be obtained while conducting the mission. The proposed mission is 

evaluated against the standard of successfully delivering the required measurements.

Requirement 7. Proposals shall state the specific science objectives and their required 

measurements at a level of detail sufficient to allow an assessment of the capability of the 

proposed mission to make those specific measurements and whether the resulting data will 

permit achievement of these objectives (see Appendix B, Sections D and E, for additional detail).

Requirement 8. Proposals shall describe the proposed instrumentation, including a discussion 

of each instrument and the rationale for its selection.

5.1.4 Baseline and Threshold Science Missions

The Baseline Science Mission and the Threshold Science Mission are defined in NM 7120-81 as 

follows:

The ―Baseline Science Mission‖ is the mission that, if fully implemented, would achieve the 

full science objectives proposed for the investigation.

The ―Threshold Science Mission‖ is the mission that would accomplish the minimum subset 

of Baseline Science Mission science objectives sufficient to justify the proposed cost of the 

mission. The threshold science requirements set the science floor for the proposed mission.

The differences between the Baseline Science Mission and the Threshold Science Mission 

provide resiliency to potential cost and schedule growth in the proposed development and 

implementation plan. A descope is any alteration of a mission that renders it unable to 

accomplish one or more of the Baseline Science Mission science objectives, but allows 

accomplishment of all Threshold Science Mission science objectives.

NASA recognizes that, in some circumstances, the Threshold Science Mission may be identical 

to the Baseline Science Mission.
- 14 -

Requirement 9. Proposals shall specify only one Baseline Science Mission and only one

Threshold Science Mission.

Requirement 10. Proposals shall not include any descopes or other risk mitigation actions that 

result in the mission being unable to achieve the Threshold Science Mission objectives.

5.1.5 Planetary Protection and Sample Return Policies

5.1.5.1 Planetary Protection

Investigations are subject to the established NASA policies and procedures that address forward 

contamination (transmittal from Earth to a targeted solar system body) and backward

contamination (transmittal to Earth from the targeted body) with respect to other solar system 

bodies (see NPD 8020.7G, Biological Contamination Control for Outbound and Inbound 

Planetary Spacecraft; NPR 8020.12C, Planetary Protection Provisions for Robotic 

Extraterrestrial Missions; and NASA-HDBK-6022, NASA Handbook for the Microbiological 

Examination of Space Hardware (DRAFT), in the Program Library). Note that forward 

contamination is of particular concern for Mars and for possible liquid water bodies within icy 

satellites.

Return of samples from certain target bodies may be subjected to rigorous containment and 

biohazard testing protocols in accordance with NASA planetary protection policy (see 

NPR 8020.12C, Planetary Protection Provisions for Robotic Extraterrestrial Missions and 

NASA/CP-2002-211842, A Draft Test Protocol for Detecting Possible Biohazards in Martian 

Samples Returned to Earth, in the Program Library).

Although not formally a part of planetary protection requirements, it is suggested that proposers

request a preliminary planetary protection categorization of their mission from the Planetary 

Protection Officer (PPO) during the early stages of planning — even before proposal submission. 

Prior to a written request, the project is encouraged to communicate informally with the PPO.

For additional information, proposers may contact the NASA Planetary Protection Officer, Dr. 

Catharine A. Conley (Telephone: 202-358-3912; E-mail: cassie.conley@nasa.gov).

Requirement 11. Proposals that include an encounter with another solar system body, via flyby, 

orbiter, lander, or end of mission impact shall address plans for contamination control, as 

required by NPD 8020.7G and NPR 8020.12C; such investigations shall bear all additional costs 

generated by any special planetary protection requirements.

Requirement 12. Proposals that include the return of extraterrestrial samples shall address plans 

to comply with planetary protection requirements as required by NPD 8020.7G and 

NPR 8020.12C; such investigations shall bear all additional costs generated by any special 

planetary protection requirements.

See Appendix B, Section J.6.A, for additional detail.
- 15 -

5.1.5.2 Curation of Returned Samples

All samples of extraterrestrial planetary materials returned by NASA missions are NASA 

property (see NPD 7100.10E, Curation of Extraterrestrial Materials, in the Program Library). 

They shall be delivered to, and processed by, the NASA Astromaterials Curatorial Facility 

located at NASA's Johnson Space Center (JSC); contact Dr. Carlton Allen, Astromaterials 

Curator (Telephone: 281-483-5126; E-mail: jsc-astromaterials-curator@mail.nasa.gov; 

http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/). The Curator will assist proposers in designing a curation plan that 

meets their mission‘s requirements for sample preservation and use (see the NASA Policy on 

Curation of Extraterrestrial Materials document in the Program Library.) The actual costs for all 

aspects of curation, from planning through distribution and storage, including all required 

laboratory construction or modification, shall be borne by the mission from inception to two 

years following sample return.

Requirement 13. Proposals that include the return of extraterrestrial samples shall provide a 

Sample Curation Plan. See Appendix B, Section J.6.B, for details.

Requirement 14. Proposals that include the return of extraterrestrial samples shall allocate 

funding for use of the JSC Curatorial Facility, including all aspects of curation.

5.1.5.3 Allocation of Returned Samples to Non-U.S. Partners

As a proportionate return for investment by non-U.S. partners in a mission that returns

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

curatorial facility of the contributing country within six months after delivery to the NASA 

Astromaterials Curatorial Facility. The amount of samples so transferred must be no more than 

25% of the total. Any material allocated to non-U.S. partners during the preliminary examination 

period must be included in this 25% limitation.

Requirement 15. Proposals that include the return of extraterrestrial samples shall specify the 

terms and conditions of selection of a sample fraction no greater than 25% for transmission to the 

contributing country, if appropriate.

In the event that the investigation is selected, the final arrangements for the transfer of a fraction 

of the sample to the contributing country must be established through an international agreement

between NASA (with the approval of the Astromaterials Curator) and the contributing non-U.S. 

partner. NASA will negotiate the terms and conditions of the agreement.

5.1.5.4 Curation of Space-Exposed Hardware

It is the policy of the Discovery Program that any space-exposed hardware returned to Earth will 

be made available to the science and engineering community for study. Such hardware must be 

delivered to and processed by the NASA Astromaterials Curatorial Facility located at NASA‘s 

Johnson Space Center (JSC). The Astromaterials Curator at the Johnson Space Center is 

responsible for the physical security, documentation, inventory accountability, environmental 

preservation, and distribution of any space-exposed hardware delivered to the Curatorial Facility.

The Curator will assist proposers in designing a curation plan for returned space-exposed 

hardware. The actual costs for all aspects of curation, from planning through distribution and 
- 16 -

storage, including all required laboratory construction or modification, shall be borne by the 

mission from inception to two years following sample return.

Requirement 16. Proposals that include the return of space-exposed hardware shall include the 

curation of this hardware in their Sample Curation Plan. See Appendix B, Section J.6.B, for 

details.

Requirement 17. Proposals that include the return of space-exposed hardware shall allocate 

funding for use of the JSC Curatorial Facility to document, store and distribute hardware 

samples, including all aspects of curation.

5.1.6 Science Enhancement Options

Activities such as extended missions, guest investigator programs, general observer programs, 

participating scientist programs, interdisciplinary scientist programs, and/or archival data 

analysis programs, where appropriate, have the potential to broaden the scientific impact of 

investigations. Such optional activities may be proposed as Science Enhancement Options

(SEOs).

NASA considers any proposed SEO activities as optional. Inclusion of such optional activities in 

a proposal does not imply a commitment from NASA to fund them, even if the baseline 

investigation is selected. NASA reserves the right to accept or decline proposed SEO activities at 

any time during the mission; in particular, the decision may not be made at the time the baseline 

investigation is selected for flight. The process for deciding on SEO activities may involve 

further reviews (e.g., a ―Senior Review‖ for extended missions). NASA reserves the right to 

solicit and select all participants (e.g., guest investigators, archival data analysts, and 

participating scientists) in such programs.

Costs for proposed SEO activities must be defined, but will not count against the PI-Managed 

Mission Cost cap. Funding requested for SEO activities prior to Phase E should be minimized.

As these proposed activities are optional and are not included within the cost capped baseline 

investigation, the science enabled by SEO activities is not considered as part of the scientific 

merit of the proposed investigation.

Requirement 18. If SEO activities are proposed, the proposal shall define and describe the 

proposed activities and their costs.

Requirement 19. If SEO activities are proposed, they shall be clearly separable from the 

Baseline Science Mission and Threshold Science Mission investigations.

Requirement 20. If an extended mission SEO is proposed, it shall conform to the guidelines 

provided in the SMD Mission Extension Paradigm document found in the Program Library.

See Appendix B, Section E, for additional detail.
- 17 -

5.2 Technical Requirements

5.2.1 Complete Spaceflight Missions

The term ―complete‖ encompasses all appropriate mission phases (see Section 4.1) from project 

initiation (Phase A) through mission operations (Phase E), which must include analysis and 

publication of data in the peer reviewed scientific literature, delivery of the data to an appropriate 

NASA data archive, preliminary analysis of returned samples, and, if applicable, extended 

mission operations or other science enhancements (see Section 5.1.6), and closeout (Phase F). 

The term ―spaceflight missions‖ is defined as Earth orbital and deep-space missions; it 

specifically excludes suborbital missions (e.g., via sounding rockets, balloons, and aircraft).

Requirement 21. Proposals submitted in response to this AO shall be for complete science 

investigations requiring a spaceflight mission.

Requirement 22. Proposals shall describe the proposed mission architecture and the rationale 

for each mission element.

Requirement 23. Proposals shall describe the proposed mission design and mission operations 

concept.

Requirement 24. Proposals shall describe the proposed flight system concept including the 

spacecraft bus and its major subsystems.

Requirement 25. Proposals shall describe the development approach for implementing the 

proposed mission within schedule and cost constraints, including a project schedule.

See Appendix B, Section F, for additional detail.

5.2.2 Accepted Management Processes and Practices

The document NM 7120-81, NASA Space Flight Program and Project Management Processes 

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

Formulation and Implementation of projects; it should be used as a reference in defining an 

Investigation Team‘s management approach. The implementing organizations are free to propose 

their own processes, procedures, and methods for managing their missions; however, they must 

be consistent with the principles of NM 7120-81. Any deviations from NM 7120-81 will require 

a waiver during formulation.

Requirement 26. Proposals shall describe the investigation's proposed management approach, 

including the management organization and decision-making process, the teaming arrangement, 

the responsibilities of the PI and other team members, and the risk management and risk 

mitigation plans (see Appendix B, Section G, for additional detail).

5.2.3 New Technologies/Advanced Developments

This AO solicits flight missions, not technology development projects. Proposed investigations 

are generally expected to have mature technologies, specifically all technologies at a Technology 

Readiness Level (TRL) of 6 or higher (TRLs are defined in NPR 7120.8, NASA Research and 
- 18 -

Technology Program and Project Management Requirements, Appendix J, which can be found 

in the NASA Online Directives Information System (NODIS) at http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/). 

Proposals with a limited number of less mature technologies are permitted, as long as they 

contain a plan for maturing all technologies to TRL 6 no later than KDP-C (Confirmation) and 

adequate backup plans in the event that the technologies cannot be matured as planned.

Section 5.9.3 of this AO provides guidelines for infusion of NASA-developed technologies. 

NASA SMD assumes the responsibility for maturing these technologies to TRL-6. Therefore, 

proposals that include utilization of one of these NASA-developed technologies will not be 

required to include a maturation plan for them. Proposals will, however, be required to include a 

plan for the infusion of these technologies (see Appendix B, Section J.13).

Requirement 27. Proposals that use technologies (other than the NASA-developed technologies 

described in Section 5.9.3) currently at less than TRL 6 shall include a plan for technology 

maturation and a backup plan (see Appendix B, Section F, for additional detail).

5.2.4 Environmental Review and Launch Approval

The process by which the environmental review and launch approval (if applicable) requirements 

are satisfied is referred to as ―launch approval engineering.‖ Multiple organizations within 

NASA, and possibly outside of NASA, participate in this process. Although it is the 

responsibility of NASA to ensure that all such requirements are satisfied, missions will have to 

allocate resources to provide inputs into the process, participate in the development and 

implementation of any contingency plans or risk communication plans, and participate in launch 

approval reviews. Additionally, spacecraft and mission designs will have to take into account 

risk reduction and range safety issues.

5.2.4.1 Environmental Review

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended (42 USC 4321 et seq.) is 

the nation's policy for the protection, maintenance, and enhancement of the environment. It 

requires NASA decision-makers to take environmental factors into account during the decisionmaking process. NASA is required to comply with NEPA for activities involving research and 

development, space flight activities, and program management. NASA implements NEPA using 

14 CFR Part 1216.3, Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act,

NPR 8580.1, Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act and Executive Order 12114, 

and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the Procedural 

Provisions of NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508).

NASA is responsible for determining the proper level of NEPA and related documentation 

required for a mission and ensuring that the process is completed during the preliminary design 

and technology development phase of a mission (per NM 7120-81, Section 4.5.2.a(2)). 

Depending on the potential environmental impacts of a selected mission, one of three levels of 

NEPA documentation will be required:

Record of Environmental Consideration and a NASA Routine Payload (NRP) Checklist;

Preparation of a mission unique Environmental Assessment (EA); or

Preparation of a mission unique Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
- 19 -

Questions concerning environmental review requirements or NEPA may be addressed to 

Ms. Tina Norwood, the NASA NEPA Program Manager, at (202) 358-7324 or by E-mail at 

nepa@hq.nasa.gov.

5.2.4.2 Use of Radioactive Material

The proposed use of radioactive materials of any quantity and any isotope, including 

radioisotope power sources, radioisotope heater units, or radioactive calibration sources for 

science instruments, will require review for environmental impact and nuclear launch safety 

approval (NLSA). The NLSA requirements are specified in NPR 8715.3, NASA General Safety 

Program Requirements, Chapter 6: ―Nuclear Safety for Launching of Radioactive Materials.‖ 

The effort required for NLSA varies between a concurrence from the NASA Office of Safety and 

Mission Assurance for low-level radioactive sources (i.e., with an A2 mission multiple less than 

10, as defined in NPR 8715.3, Chapter 6 and Appendix D) to a full interagency review and 

approval from the Executive Office of the President for radioisotope power sources or 

radioisotope heater units.

Requirement 28. If use of radioactive materials is proposed (including radioisotope power 

systems and radioisotope heater units), the proposal shall include a listing of the estimated 

radioactive materials to be used (isotope, form, quantity). The proposal shall provide a rationale 

for the use of radioactive materials and reasonable, nonnuclear alternatives.

This AO allows for missions to baseline use of minor radiological sources for science 

instrumentation and radioisotope heater units (RHUs). If RHUs are to be used in a mission 

proposed for this AO, NASA, under an agreement with the Department of Energy (DOE), will

provide these, as well as the services associated with their provisioning on space missions. 

However, the use of RHUs is not without costs charged against the PI-Managed Mission Cost; 

missions will have to reimburse the Department of Energy for the cost of the RHUs (see 

Requirement 29) and fund the environmental and nuclear launch safety review processes (see 

Sections 5.2.4.1, 5.2.4.2, and 5.2.4.4).

Requirement 29. The costs of RHUs and their associated services and any minor sources shall

be included within the PI-Managed Mission Cost (for pricing information, see the Radioisotope 

Heater Unit Information Summary document in the Program Library).

Launch processing of a mission that uses radioisotope power systems or radioisotope heater units

is a nonstandard launch service that carries an additional cost against the PI-Managed Mission 

Cost (see Section 5.9.2).

Questions concerning the NLSA process may be addressed to Mr. Mark Dahl, at (202) 358-0306

or at mark.r.dahl@nasa.gov.

5.2.4.3 Restricted Sample Return

If a mission plans on returning samples to the Earth from a Solar System body deemed by 

scientific opinion to potentially harbor indigenous life, a safety approval process with the 

Executive Office of the President will be necessary (see NPR 8020.12C). Specific planetary 
- 20 -

protection requirements for each planned mission will be determined by the NASA Planetary 

Protection Officer, in accordance NPR 8020.12C, and consistent with the policy and guidelines 

of the Committee on Space Research (COSPAR), recommendations of the Space Studies Board 

of the National Research Council (NRC), and advice from the NASA Advisory Council. The 

direct or indirect environmental effects that may be associated with sample return will have to be 

documented and the decision to approve the sample return will rest with the NASA 

Administrator and the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). 

Proposers are encouraged to review the Sample Return Primer and Handbook found in the 

Program Library.

5.2.4.4 Accommodating Environmental Review and Launch Approval 

Requirements

The costs associated with satisfying the requirements of the NEPA and NLSA are borne by a 

range of organizations. If an Advanced Stirling Radioisotope Generator (ASRG) is proposed to 

be used, the costs of safety analyses associated with its design will be paid for by NASA. The 

launch of radioactive materials entails ―nonstandard launch services‖ which are detailed in the 

Launch Services Information Summary document in the Program Library. The costs for these 

services must be included in the PI-Managed Mission Cost for missions not using ASRGs (see 

Section 5.9.2). The costs for the development of some NEPA and NLSA documents will be 

considered part of the PI-Managed Mission Cost. These last costs vary depending on the 

attributes of the proposed mission, as shown in Table 1; the costs in Table 1 are to be used for 

proposal preparation and are firm, fixed costs; proposals should not add margin onto them. For 

proposal purposes, these costs should be treated as decrements to the PI-Managed Mission Cost 

Cap; there is no need to identify which year the costs will be expended nor to convert the costs 

into real year dollars.

Also shown in Table 1 are the key milestones that missions will have to accommodate in their 

scheduling. Only portions of the documents required to meet these milestones must be provided 

by the proposed mission; NASA, DOE, and their contractors will produce the majority of them. 

Proposed missions, however, must be cognizant of the environmental review and launch 

approval schedule constraints imposed by NASA‘s processes.
- 21 -

Table 1: Key milestones and costs for launch approval processes in FY10 dollars.

Mission Attributes Cost Key Milestones

ASRG

ASRG + RHUs

ASRG + minor sources

ASRG + RHUs + minor 

sources

$20M

NEPA Notice of Intent: 21 months before CDR

NEPA Databook: 16 months before CDR

Final NEPA Document: 1 month before CDR

SAR* Launch Vehicle Databook: 3 years before launch

OSTP Request for Launch Approval: 6 months before launch

Risk communication Plan: 21 months before CDR

RHU

RHU + minor sources

$20M

NEPA Notice of Intent: 21 months before CDR

NEPA Databook: 16 months before CDR

Final NEPA Document: 1 month before CDR

SAR Launch Vehicle Databook: 3 years before launch

OSTP Request for Launch Approval: 6 months before launch

Risk communication Plan: 21 months before CDR

Restricted Sample Return

(ASRG outbound only)

$20M

NEPA Notice of Intent: 21 months before CDR

NEPA Databook: 16 months before CDR

Final NEPA Document: 1 month before CDR

SAR Launch Vehicle Databook: 3 years before launch

OSTP Request for Launch Approval: 6 months before launch

Risk communication Plan: 21 months before CDR

Restricted Sample Return

(minor sources only) $14M Final NEPA Document: PDR

Nuclear Safety Review/Request Document: 5 months before launch

Restricted Sample Return

(no ASRG or minor sources)

$13M

Final NEPA Document: PDR

Minor sources with A2 

mission multiple between 10 

and 500.

$800K

NEPA Notice of Intent: 21 months before CDR

NEPA Databook: 16 months before CDR

Final NEPA Document: 1 month before CDR

LV Data for Nuclear Safety Review Document: 17 months before 

launch

Nuclear Safety Review/Request Document: 5 months before launch

Risk communication Plan: 21 months before CDR

Out of scope with NASA 

Routine Payload 

Environmental Assessment

$500K

Final NEPA Document: PDR

Within scope of NASA 

Routine Payload 

Environmental Assessment

$100K

Final NEPA Document: PDR

*SAR = Safety Analysis Report

Requirement 30. The costs of environmental review and launch approval shall be included in 

the PI-Managed Mission Cost. The key milestones for environmental review and launch 

approval shall be accounted for in the proposed schedule.

5.2.5 Telecommunications, Tracking, and Navigation

Use of NASA‘s Near-Earth Network, Space Network, or Deep Space Network (DSN) may be 

proposed, as appropriate. Points of contact and cost information for these services may be found 

in the NASA’s Mission Operations and Communications Services document in the Program 

Library.

A cost estimation algorithm for the DSN and persons to contact to obtain costs for other 

networks and various Government operated facilities are contained in the NASA’s Mission 
- 22 -

Operations and Communications Services document or at the DSN Future Missions Planning 

Office website at http://deepspace.jpl.nasa.gov/advmiss/. For assistance with the cost calculation, 

contact the persons named on the website.

When the use of non-NASA communication services is proposed, NASA reserves the option of 

contracting for those services directly through its Space Communication and Navigation (SCaN) 

office. Further information may be obtained from the point of contact in the NASA’s Mission 

Operations and Communications Services document. NASA funds may not be used for the 

construction of new facilities for non-NASA communications services.

Requirement 31. Proposals shall include mission requirements for telecommunications, 

tracking, and navigation; proposals shall also include a plan for meeting those requirements,

including a cost plan, where the cost of development and use of telecommunications, tracking, 

and navigation services must be included within the PI-Managed Mission Cost cap whether or 

not NASA networks are used.

Where the use of NASA's network services is clearly within the capabilities and capacities 

described in the NASA’s Mission Operations and Communications Services document, no Letter 

of Commitment is required from the NASA network provider.

Where the use of NASA's network services may not be within the capabilities and capacities 

described in the NASA’s Mission Operations and Communications Services document, 

discussions should be initiated with the Point of Contact (POC) named in that document. In this 

case, a Letter of Commitment is required from the NASA network provider describing the 

network‘s ability to deliver the required capabilities and capacities and the cost for doing so.

It is SMD policy that only one DSN 34 meter antenna will be scheduled at the same time during 

normal operations of the selected Discovery mission. It is SMD policy that none of the DSN 70 

meter antennas may be proposed to support normal operations of the selected Discovery mission. 

These restrictions do not apply to station hand-offs, critical event coverage, emergency services, 

radio science measurements, or navigation observations (e.g., delta differential one-way ranging 

or delta-DOR).

NASA intends to transition all deep-space missions launched after 2016 to the use Ka-band for 

science data return (telemetry, tracking, and commanding (TT&C) data may still be transmitted 

using X-band). In order to better manage the Agency‘s transition to Ka-band service, proposed 

investigations shall baseline the use of Ka-band for science data return. The Space Frequency 

Coordination Group (SFCG) has recommended (Recommendation 23-1, available at 

https://www.sfcgonline.org/) that X-band users be limited to using 12 MHz of spectrum in deep 

space and 8 MHz at Mars (where there are multiple missions). Where appropriate, these limits 

will be imposed on missions proposed to this AO.

Requirement 32. If use of NASA's network services is proposed, costs for services, as 

described in the NASA’s Mission Operations and Communications Services document, must be 

included in the proposal's cost plan.
- 23 -

Requirement 33. If use of NASA's network services beyond the capabilities and capacities 

described in the NASA’s Mission Operations and Communications Services document is 

proposed, the proposal shall include a Letter of Commitment from the NASA network provider; 

the Letter should confirm the ability of the network to provide the required capabilities and 

capacities and should include an estimate of the additional costs for these capabilities and 

capacities.

Requirement 34. Proposals shall baseline the use of only one DSN 34 meter at any time for 

normal operations (not including periods of station hand-off).

Requirement 35. Proposals shall baseline the use of Ka-band for science data return. If the use 

of Ka-band is inappropriate for the proposed investigation (based on the SFCG 

recommendations), then the proposal shall contain a justification for the use of an alternative 

communications approach.

5.2.6 Critical Event Coverage

Critical events in the operation of a spacecraft are defined as those that must be executed 

successfully, usually in a single opportunity, as failure could lead to early loss or significant 

degradation of the mission if not executed successfully or recovered from quickly in the event of 

a problem.

NPR 8705.4, Risk Classification for NASA Payloads requires that critical event telemetry be

recovered for reconstruction of an anomaly, should one occur. Critical event telemetry must be 

transmitted from the spacecraft in real-time, in case the RF link is lost, but is not required to be 

displayed or analyzed in real time. NPR 8705.4 provides examples of critical events. Critical 

event coverage may be provided in any fashion that is deemed appropriate for the proposed 

investigation.

Requirement 36. Proposals shall specify all critical events for the proposed mission and shall 

discuss the technical approach, required resources, and implementation concepts for providing 

critical event telemetry.

5.2.7 End-of-Mission Spacecraft Disposal Requirement

NPR 8715.6, NASA Procedural Requirements for Limiting Orbital Debris, specifies that 

spacecraft are to limit the generation of orbital debris during operations and spacecraft disposal 

requirements for all Earth- and Moon-orbiting spacecraft. Earth-orbiting spacecraft must be 

passivated at the end of the mission prior to disposal and be deorbited within 25 years of end-ofmission (or 30 years after launch, whichever comes first), or be placed in a disposal orbit above 

2000 km, but not within 300 km of geosynchronous orbit (GEO). Lunar missions must address 

disposal to avoid increasing the hazard to other spacecraft. Please note that NASA prefers 

powered controlled reentries for disposal.

Requirement 37. As applicable for Earth and Moon orbiters, proposals shall demonstrate

satisfaction of the orbit disposal requirement by providing a mission lifetime analysis and 

indicating whether disposal is in orbit or with a reentry, either controlled or uncontrolled (see 

Appendix B, Section J.7, for additional detail).
- 24 -

5.2.8 Deviations from Recommended Payload Requirements

Discovery missions are required to meet the requirements for safety, reliability, and mission 

assurance in the Discovery Program Safety and Mission Assurance Guidelines and Requirements

document (available in the Program Library).

Requirement 38. Proposals shall indicate any expected deviations from the recommended 

requirements in the Discovery Program Safety and Mission Assurance Guidelines and 

Requirements document and in Appendix B of NPR 8705.4 for the payload class specified in 

Section 4.1.4.

5.2.9 Mission Operations Tools and Services

NASA's Advanced Multi-Mission Operating System (AMMOS) comprises a set of tools and 

services that support the operations of robotic flight missions (see the AMMOS catalog at 

http://ammos.jpl.nasa.gov/). Use of AMMOS may be proposed, as appropriate. Points of contact 

and cost information for these services may be found in the Advanced Multi-Mission Operating 

System Services document in the Program Library.

5.3 Management Requirements

See Appendix B, Section G, for additional detail.

5.3.1 Principal Investigator

The PI is accountable to NASA for the success of the investigation, with full responsibility for its 

scientific integrity and for its execution within committed cost and schedule. Designation of a 

deputy PI is recommended, but not required.

The PI must be prepared to recommend project termination when, in her/his judgment, the 

minimum subset of science objectives identified in the proposal as the Threshold Science

Mission (Section 5.1.4) is not likely to be achieved within the committed cost and schedule.

Requirement 39. Proposals shall identify and designate one, and only one, PI as the individual 

in charge of the proposed investigation.

5.3.2 Project Manager

The Project Manager (PM) oversees the technical and programmatic implementation of the 

project. The PM works closely with the PI in order to ensure that the mission meets its objectives 

within the resources outlined in the proposal.

Proposals may designate a Project Manager Alternate. At selection and subject to the approval of 

NASA, the Alternate may be named as the Project Manager. The qualifications of both the PM 

and the PM Alternate will be evaluated.

NASA will approve the PM at each transition to the next Phase of implementation as part of the 

KDP approval process.
- 25 -

Requirement 40. Proposals shall identify a single Project Manager as the individual charged 

with the responsibility for overseeing the technical and programmatic implementation of the 

proposed project. Proposals may optionally name a single Project Manager Alternate.

Requirement 41. Proposals shall clearly define the respective roles of the PI and PM.

5.3.3 Management and Organization Experience and Expertise

The qualifications and experience of the PI, PM, Project Scientist (PS), Project Systems Engineer

(PSE), and other key members of the PI-led Investigation Team must be commensurate with the 

technical and managerial needs of the proposed investigation.

The implementing institutions, selected and overseen by the PI, have the responsibility to ensure 

that the mission meets schedule and cost constraints. It is the PM and the implementing 

institutions‘ responsibility to provide the quality personnel and resources necessary to meet the 

technical and managerial needs of the mission. The commitment, spaceflight experience, and 

past performance of the PI and of the implementing institutions will be assessed against the 

needs of the investigation.

Requirement 42. Proposals shall identify the management positions that will be filled by key 

management team members. These positions shall include, as a minimum, the PI, PM, PSE, and, 

where appropriate, the PS and partner leads. For management positions for which key 

management team members are named (including the PI and PM per Requirement 39 and 

Requirement 40), proposals shall describe the qualifications and experience of those team 

members who occupy those positions. For management positions for which key management 

team members are not named, proposals shall describe the qualifications and experience required 

of any candidate to occupy those positions. For all positions that will be filled by key 

management team members, proposals shall demonstrate that the described qualifications and 

experience are commensurate with the technical and managerial needs of the proposed 

investigation.

Requirement 43. Proposals shall describe the qualifications and experience of the primary 

implementing institutions and demonstrate that they are commensurate with the technical and 

managerial needs of the proposed investigation.

5.3.4 Risk Management

Proposers must demonstrate clear understanding of specific risks inherent in the development 

and implementation of their proposed investigation and must discuss their approaches to 

mitigating these risks. Examples of such risks that must be discussed in the proposal are: any 

new technologies, or any nontrivial modifications or upgrades of existing technologies, proposed 

for the investigation; any validation of heritage technology for the mission context; any 

manufacturing, test, or other facilities needed to ensure successful completion of the proposed 

investigation; any need for long-lead items that must be placed on contract before the beginning 

of Phase C to ensure timely delivery; and any contributions that are critical to the success of the 

mission.
- 26 -

Requirement 44. Proposals shall define and discuss the major risks to the development and 

implementation of the proposed investigation.

Requirement 45. Proposals shall discuss management approaches to mitigate risks to ensure 

successful achievement of the investigation objectives within the committed cost and schedule.

The differences between the Baseline Science Mission and the Threshold Science Mission (see 

Section 5.1.4) may provide some resiliency to potential cost and/or schedule growth in the 

proposed development and implementation of the investigation. One method of responding to 

such growth is to descope the mission. Any set of descopes, which still allows the investigation 

to satisfy the objectives of the Threshold Science Mission, may be proposed.

Requirement 46. If the proposed risk management approach includes potential descoping of 

mission capabilities, the proposal shall include a discussion of the approach to such descopes, 

including savings of resources (mass, power, dollars, schedule, etc.) by implementing descopes, 

and the decision milestone(s) for implementing descopes.

Proposals that include international participation must address the risk resulting from any 

international contributions to the proposed mission (see Section 5.6.7 and Section 5.7).

5.3.5 Compliance with Procurement Regulations by NASA PI Proposals

Proposals submitted by NASA Centers are required to comply with regulations governing proposals 

submitted by NASA PIs (NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) 1872.308). Additional instructions may be 

found in Procurement Information Circular (PIC) 05-15 (see Program Library).

Requirement 47. Proposals submitted by NASA Centers shall contain any descriptions, 

justifications, representations, indications, statements, and/or explanations that are required by 

the regulations in NFS 1872.308 (see Appendix B, Section J.8, for additional detail).

5.4 Science Team, Co-Investigators, and Collaborators

5.4.1 Science Team

Requirement 48. Proposals shall clearly define the science team necessary to successfully 

conduct the science investigation.

5.4.2 Co-Investigators

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

investigation and whose services are either funded by NASA or are contributed by his/her 

employer.

Every Co-I must have a role that is required for the successful development of the mission, and 

the necessity of that role must be justified. The identification of any unjustified Co-Is may result 

in the downgrading of an investigation and/or the offer of only a partial selection by NASA.

Requirement 49. Proposals shall designate all Co-Is, describe the role of each Co-I in the 

development of the mission, and justify the necessary nature of the role.
- 27 -

Requirement 50. Proposals shall identify the funding source for each Co-I. If funded by NASA, 

costs shall be included in the PI-Managed Mission Cost. If contributed, the costs shall be 

included in the Total Mission Cost.

5.4.3 Collaborators

A collaborator is an individual who is less critical to the successful development of the mission

than a Co-I. A collaborator must not be funded through the proposal. A collaborator may be

committed to provide a focused contribution to the project for a specific task, such as data 

analysis. If funding support is requested in the proposal for an individual, that individual must 

not be identified as a collaborator, but must be identified as a Co-Investigator or another category 

of team member.

Requirement 51. Proposals shall identify and designate all collaborators.

5.5 Small Business Participation and Education and Public Outreach

5.5.1 Small Business Participation

It is the policy of the Government when contracts are issued to emphasize subcontracting 

opportunities for small businesses. Offerors are advised that NASA is subject to statutory goals 

to allocate a fair portion of its contract dollars to small businesses, small disadvantaged business 

(SDB) concerns, Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), and Other Minority 

Institutions (OMIs), as these entities are defined in Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR)

52.219-8 and 52.226-2. Offerors are encouraged to assist NASA in achieving these goals by 

using best efforts to involve these entities as subcontractors to the fullest extent consistent with 

efficient performance of their investigations.

Offerors are advised that, by law, for NASA prime contracts resulting from this solicitation 

which offer subcontracting possibilities, exceed $500,000, and are with organizations other than 

small business concerns, the clause at FAR 52.219-9 will apply. Offerors other than small 

businesses submitting a proposal are advised that a small business subcontracting plan is 

required with goals for subcontracting with small business (SB), small disadvantaged business 

(SDB), veteran-owned small business (VOSB), service-disabled veteran-owned small business 

(SDVOSB), Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) small business (HBZ), 

women-owned small business (WOSB), HBCU, and OMI entities to the maximum practicable 

extent.

If offerors are able to demonstrate that subcontracting opportunities are not reasonably available 

in the performance of the Phase A concept studies, then subcontracting plans are not required for 

evaluation of Step 1 proposals leading to Phase A awards for project formulation.

Requirement 52. Proposals shall include a small business subcontracting plan for the Phase A 

concept study or demonstrate that one is not required (see Appendix B, Section I.1 for additional 

detail).
- 28 -

At the time the Phase A concept study report is delivered, regardless of whether subcontracting 

plans are submitted with the Step 1 proposal, offerors other than small business concerns are 

required to submit small business subcontracting plans, covering Phases B/C/D/E/F. Failure to 

submit a subcontracting plan will make the offeror ineligible for subsequent implementation and 

operation phases. As part of the Step 2 continuation (downselect) decision process, these 

subcontracting plans will be evaluated on the participation goals and quality and level of work 

performed by small business concerns overall, as well as that performed by the various 

categories of small business concerns listed in FAR 52.219-9, except for SDBs. Offerors will

separately identify and will be evaluated on participation targets of SDBs in North American

Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes determined by the Department of Commerce to 

be underrepresented industry sectors.

5.5.2 Core E/PO Program

Among NASA‘s strategic goals is to communicate the results of its efforts to the American 

public and to enhance the science and technical education of the next generation of Americans. 

All selected investigations will be required to implement a core Education and Public Outreach 

(E/PO) program consistent with SMD policy (see the Explanatory Guide to the NASA Science 

Mission Directorate Educational and Public Outreach Evaluation Factors document in the 

Program Library). However the quality of E/PO plans is not a consideration in the selection of 

Step 1 proposals for Phase A concept studies. Therefore, E/PO plans are not needed at this time. 

Detailed plans for E/PO programs are neither required nor permitted in proposals.

A plan for a core E/PO program will be developed during the Phase A concept study and will be 

included in the Concept Study Report. The quality of the E/PO plan contained in the Concept 

Study Report will be evaluated and will be a factor in the downselection for flight following 

Phase A; see The Explanatory Guide to the NASA Science Mission Directorate Educational and 

Public Outreach Evaluation Factors in the Program Library.

The minimum allowable core E/PO program cost is defined to be 1% of the PI-Managed Mission 

Cost Cap but excluding any additions to the cost cap owing to technology infusions (see 

Section 5.9.3). Missions must designate at least the minimum allowable core E/PO program cost 

for implementation of the core E/PO program. There is no maximum allowable cost for the core 

E/PO program; however, the funding for the core E/PO program must be included in the PIManaged Mission Cost.

Core E/PO activities may continue for one year following end-of-prime-mission to allow for the 

incorporation of the results of the mission investigation into the core E/PO program.

Requirement 53. Proposals shall not designate an E/PO lead and proposals shall not include a 

plan for a core E/PO program.

Requirement 54. Proposals shall identify the funding set aside for the implementation of a core 

E/PO program; this funding shall be at least the minimum allowable core E/PO program cost and 

shall be included in the PI-Managed Mission Cost.
- 29 -

Requirement 55. Proposals shall include the following statement of commitment from the PI 

(see Appendix B, Section I.2, for additional detail):

―I understand the NASA SMD requirements for E/PO and I am committed to carrying out 

a core E/PO program that meets the goals described in the Explanatory Guide to the 

NASA Science Mission Directorate Educational and Public Outreach Evaluation Factors

document. I will submit an E/PO plan with my Concept Study Report if this proposal is 

selected.‖

5.5.3 Student Collaborations (optional)

Proposals may define a Student Collaboration (SC) that is a separate part of the proposed 

investigation. A SC can take the form of an instrument development, an investigation of 

scientific questions, analysis and display of data, development of supporting hardware or 

software, or other aspects of the investigation. The SC must be incorporated into the mission on a 

nonimpact basis. That is, the SC may not increase the mission development risk or impact the 

development or performance of the baseline science investigation in any way that would cause 

the baseline mission to be compromised in the event that the SC component is not funded;

encounters technical, schedule, or cost problems; or fails in flight. A SC must be dependent upon 

the proposed mission being implemented, e.g., require the provision of flight elements and/or 

access to science/engineering data generated by the mission. SC elements that involve only 

analysis of archival data may not be proposed. A SC may, but is not required to, have the 

potential to add value to the science or engineering of the mission. A SC must include

appropriate plans for the mentoring and oversight of students to maximize the opportunity for 

teaching, learning, and success in contributing to the mission.

Although any proposed SC is an E/PO element, a SC may not be used as a component of the core 

E/PO program. If a proposed investigation is selected, NASA retains the option to fund or not to 

fund any proposed SC.

There is no minimum and no maximum allowable cost for a SC. NASA is providing a student 

collaboration incentive that is defined to be 1% of the PI-Managed Mission Cost Cap, but 

excluding any additions to the cost cap owing to technology infusions (see Section 5.9.3). The 

proposed cost of the SC, up to the student collaboration incentive, may be outside of the PIManaged Mission Cost. If the SC costs more than the student collaboration incentive, then the 

rest of the cost of the SC must be within the PI-Managed Mission Cost.

In the Step 1 evaluation, a proposed SC will be evaluated only for its impact on mission 

feasibility. The merit of the proposed SC will not be evaluated in the Step 1 evaluation; the merit 

of the proposed SC will be evaluated as part of the evaluation of the Step 2 Concept Study 

Report; see The Explanatory Guide to the NASA Science Mission Directorate Educational Merit 

Evaluation Factors for Student Collaboration Elements in the Program Library.

Requirement 56. If a proposal contains a SC, the proposal shall demonstrate that the proposed 

SC is clearly separable from the proposed Baseline and Threshold Science Mission 

investigations, to the extent that the SC will not impact the science investigation in the event that 

the SC is not funded; that the SC fails during flight operations; or that the SC encounters
- 30 -

technical, schedule, or cost problems during development (see Appendix B, Section I.3, for 

additional detail).

Requirement 57. If a proposal contains a SC, the proposal shall identify the funding set aside 

for the SC; this funding may be outside the PI-Managed Mission Cost up to the student 

collaboration incentive, and any SC costs beyond the student collaboration incentive shall be 

within the PI-Managed Mission Cost.

5.6 Cost Requirements

5.6.1 PI-Managed Mission Cost and Total Mission Cost

The PI-Managed Mission Cost, including all mission phases, before any adjustments, is capped 

at $425M FY 2010 dollars. The PI-Managed Mission Cost excludes the cost of launch vehicles 

(Section 5.9.2). The PI-Managed Mission Cost cap is adjusted by costs for the launch approval 

process (Section 5.2.4.4 ), costs for nonstandard launch vehicles and fairings (Section 5.9.2),

costs for nonstandard launch services associated with the launch of radioactive material

(Section 5.9.2), and incentives for the infusion of NASA-developed technology (Section 5.9.3).

Charges for nonstandard launch vehicles and services must be counted against the PI-Managed 

Mission Cost (see Section 5.9.2).

Investigations selected to proceed to Phase B (or an extended Phase A) will have their PIManaged Mission Cost capped at the cost proposed in the Concept Study Report and approved 

by NASA at downselect (see Section 7.4.3).

Requirement 58. Proposals shall include the proposed PI-Managed Mission Cost and the 

proposed Total Mission Cost in all required AO cost tables (see Appendix B, Section H, for 

required AO cost tables).

Requirement 59. The proposed costs shall comply with the specified PI-Managed Mission Cost 

cap.

Requirement 60. No more than 25% of the proposed costs may be spent prior to KDP-C 

(Confirmation).

5.6.2 Cost of the Phase A Concept Study

Proposers selected through this AO will be awarded a contract to conduct a Phase A concept 

study with a duration of approximately nine months following the establishment of initial 

contracts. The cost of the Phase A concept study is capped at $3.0M Real Year (RY) dollars. See 

Sections 7.4.2 and 7.4.3 for additional information on the Phase A concept study.

Requirement 61. Proposals shall include the cost of the Phase A concept study, which shall be 

included within the PI-Managed Mission Cost, and the proposed cost shall comply with the 

Phase A concept study cost cap.
- 31 -

The unique mission management approaches and organizational arrangements in the selected 

proposals may require the Program Office to implement varying contract administration and 

funding arrangements.

Requirement 62. Proposals shall specify the proposed teaming arrangements for the Phase A 

concept study, including any special contracting mechanisms that are advantageous for specific 

partners in the team. If more than one contractual arrangement between NASA and the proposing 

team is required, proposals shall identify how funds are to be allocated among the partnering 

organizations.

5.6.3 Cost Estimating Methodologies and Cost Reserve Management

As the provision of cost details is not anticipated until the conclusion of concept studies, 

proposals may use estimates derived from models or cost estimating relationships from 

analogous missions (see Appendix B, Section H, for additional detail).

Requirement 63. Proposals shall identify the methodologies (cost models, cost estimating 

relationships of analogous missions, etc.) and rationale used to develop the proposed cost.

Requirement 64. Proposals shall include a discussion of sources of estimate error and 

uncertainty in the proposed cost and management approaches for controlling cost growth.

Proposals that are unable to show adequate unencumbered cost reserves are likely to be judged a 

high cost risk and not selected. For the purpose of this AO, the unencumbered cost reserves on 

the PI-Managed Mission Cost are measured as a percentage against the cost to complete through 

Phases A/B/C/D/E. The numerator is the amount of unencumbered cost reserves, not including 

funded schedule reserve. The denominator is the PI-managed mission cost to complete Phases AE, including the cost of technical design margin, including funded schedule reserve, not 

including cost reserve.

Adequate unencumbered cost reserves are defined to be a minimum of 25%. Adequate 

unencumbered cost reserves must be demonstrated at each of the following milestones: KDP-A 

(demonstrated in the proposal), KDP-B (demonstrated in the Phase A Concept Study Report), 

KDP-C (the independent cost estimate for Confirmation), KDP-D (at the end of Phase C), and 

KDP-E (at the start of Phase E, generally 30 to 90 days after launch).

Requirement 65. Proposals shall justify the adequacy of the proposed cost reserves, given that 

the proposed cost is not allowed to increase beyond the cost cap during Phase A or at any later 

time. Proposals shall comply with the requirement for unencumbered cost reserves against the 

cost to complete and shall demonstrate an approach to maintaining required unencumbered cost 

reserves through subsequent development and operations phases.

5.6.4 Work Breakdown Structure

Requirement 66. Proposals shall provide a Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) that conforms to 

the standard prescribed in Appendix G of NM 7120-81. Costs for most elements shall be 

specified to WBS Level-2. Exceptions are the costs of elements which explicitly appear only at a 

level below WBS Level-2; these exceptions include individual instruments, unique flight system 
- 32 -

elements, the use of NASA or NASA-procured tracking and communications, and data 

analysis/archiving (see Appendix B, Section H, for additional detail).

5.6.5 Master Equipment List

Requirement 67. Proposals shall include a Master Equipment List (MEL) summarizing all 

major components of each flight element subsystem and each instrument element components to 

support validation of proposed mass estimates, design heritage, and cost (see Appendix B, 

Section J.9, for additional detail).

5.6.6 Full Cost Accounting for NASA Facilities and Personnel

For the purpose of calculating the full cost of NASA provided services for proposals submitted 

in response to this AO, proposal budgets from NASA Centers, whether as the proposing 

organization or as a supporting organization, are to include within the PI-Managed Mission Cost 

all costs required for the performance of the research effort. Since the NASA civil servant labor 

and benefits costs will be covered by the unified labor account within the Agency‘s CrossAgency Support Program (CASP), these costs will not be paid from the resulting award but still 

must be accounted for within the PI-Managed Mission Cost.

All NASA civil servant labor costs, including salary and benefit costs, must be clearly identified 

by year within the budget justification section of the proposal.

Estimated NASA Center Management and Operations (CM&O) costs must be included to enable 

a level playing field for proposers. For the purpose of calculating the full cost of NASA provided 

services for proposals submitted in response to this AO, the CM&O burden should be applied 

only to NASA provided labor, including Center civil servants and on-site contractors.

Do not include within the cost proposal, nor within the PI-Managed Mission Cost, other costs not 

paid with Discovery Program funds such as allocated service pools, Agency Management and 

Operations (AM&O, a.k.a. NASA Headquarters overhead), and any CM&O burden attributed to

off-site contracts (pass-through dollars) and other cost elements.

Proposal budgets from NASA Centers, whether as the proposing organization or as a supporting 

organization, must include within the PI-Managed Mission Cost the following cost elements as 

appropriate and must separately identify them by element and by year:

NASA civil servant direct labor including benefits;

NASA civil servant travel; 

Other direct costs including non-civil servant demand service pools and procurements as 

identified in the NASA N-2 database; and

The CM&O burden on NASA provided labor, including Center civil servants and on-site 

contractors.
- 33 -

Cost Elements for NASA Center Budget Proposals in response to SMD AOs

Identify 

in 

proposal

Include in PImanaged 

mission cost

Funding 

source

Comments

Civil Service Labor Yes Yes CASP includes benefits

Civil Service Travel Yes Yes SMD 

Program

Other Direct Yes Yes SMD 

Program

includes non-civil servant 

demand service pools and 

procurements as identified in the 

NASA N-2 database

CM&O Yes Yes CASP

applied to NASA provided labor, 

including Center civil servants 

and on-site contractors

AM&O No No CASP includes NASA provided 

independent technical authority

NASA Contributed 

Costs Yes No Identify must be non-SMD

Non-NASA Federal

Government

(funding requested 

from NASA)

Yes Yes SMD 

Program

if NASA funding is requested 

for the non-NASA Federal 

Government agency

Contributions Yes No Identify includes all non-NASA 

contributions

Requirement 68. Proposals including costs for NASA Centers shall conform to the full cost 

policy stated in Section 5.6.6. Each of the elements of the NASA Center costs (direct labor, 

travel, other direct costs (procurements and demand service pools), CM&O) shall be separately 

identified by year. 

If any NASA funded item(s) or services are to be considered as contributed costs, then the 

contributed item(s) must be separately funded by a non-SMD effort complementary to the 

proposed investigation, the value of the contribution(s) must be estimated, and the funding

source(s) must be identified. 

Requirement 69. If any NASA funded item(s) or services are considered as contributed costs, 

then the proposal shall estimate the value of the contribution(s) and shall identify the funding 

source(s). 

Any non-NASA Federal Government costs must follow the appropriate agency accounting 

standards for full cost. If no standards are in effect, the proposers must follow the Managerial 

Cost Accounting Concepts and Standards for the Federal Government, as recommended by the 

Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board and available in the Program Library. 

Requirement 70. Proposals including costs for non-NASA Federal Government agencies shall 

follow the applicable accounting standards. 
- 34 -

5.6.7 Contributions

Contributions from sources other than the Discovery Program and other SMD programs, U.S. or 

non-U.S., are welcome. These may include, but are not limited to, labor, services, and/or 

contributions to the instrument complement or the spacecraft, subject to the following exceptions 

and limitations: (i) contributions of non-U.S. nuclear power sources are prohibited; and (ii) in 

order to ensure a preponderance of NASA interest in the mission, as well as to ensure that 

missions of roughly comparable scope are proposed for purposes of equitable competition, the 

sum of contributions of any kind to the entirety of the investigation is not to exceed one-third 

(1/3) of the proposed PI-Managed Mission Cost. Such contributions will not be counted against 

the PI-Managed Mission Cost, but they must be included in the calculation and discussion of the 

Total Mission Cost (Section 4.3).

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

applicable cost principles. The cost of contributed hardware must be estimated as either: (i) 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 (ii) the cost associated with the reproduction and modification of the item (i.e., any 

recurring and mission-unique costs), if this is not a first-time development. If an item is being 

developed primarily for an application other than the one in which it will be used in the proposed 

investigation, then it may be considered as falling into the second category (with the estimated 

cost calculated as that associated with the reproduction and modification alone).

The cost of contributed labor and services must be consistent with rates paid for similar work in 

the proposer's organization. The cost of contributions does not include funding spent before the 

start of the investigation (i.e., before initiation of Phase B). The value of materials and supplies 

must be reasonable and must not exceed the fair market value of the property at the time of the 

contribution.

Requirement 71. If a proposal includes one or more contributions, the proposal shall identify all 

contributions, the organizations providing the contributions, and the organizations providing the 

funding for the contributions; the costs for the contributions shall be clearly identified within the 

Total Mission Cost.

Requirement 72. If a proposal includes one or more contributions, the total value of the 

contributions shall be established in accordance with the applicable and stated cost principles and 

shall comply with the stated cap on the sum of all contributions.

Letters of Commitment are required from each organization responsible for a contribution (for 

U.S. organizations, see Section 5.8.1.1 and Requirement 81; for non-U.S. contributing 

organizations, see Section 5.7.2 and Requirement 75).

The requirement for institutional Letters of Commitment for contributions does not apply to 

contributed support for Co-Investigators; no institutional Letters of Commitment are required 

with the Step 1 proposal for contributed Co-Investigator support. The requirement for personal 

statements of commitment from contributed Co-investigators is given in Section 5.8.1.3 and 

Requirement 83.
- 35 -

A contributed item that is essential for the success of the proposed investigation and/or is in the 

critical path of mission development is a risk factor. Risks include the failure of funding or 

contributions to materialize when they are outside the control of the PI. Mitigation may include, 

but is not limited to, descoping the contributed items and/or holding reserves to develop the 

contribution directly. When no mitigation is possible, this should be explicitly acknowledged 

(see Appendix B, Section H, for additional detail).

Requirement 73. If a proposal includes contributions that are essential to the success of the 

proposed investigation or in the critical path, the proposal shall include: (i) demonstrations of 

clear and simple technical and management interfaces in the proposed cooperative arrangements, 

(ii) explicit evidence that the proposed contributions are within the contributors‘ scientific and 

technical capabilities, and (iii) contingency plans for coping with potential failures of proposed 

cooperative arrangements.

5.7 Non-U.S. Participation Requirements

5.7.1 Overview of Non-U.S. Participation

NASA solicits research proposals from both U.S. and non-U.S. sources (see NFS 1835.016-70).

NASA's policies for international cooperation in space research projects may be found in 

NPD 1360.2B, Initiation and Development of International Cooperation in Space and 

Aeronautics Programs. The characteristics of successful international cooperation include 

mutual benefits, clearly defined division of responsibilities, responsibilities for each participant 

within known capabilities, recognition of export control laws prohibiting the unwarranted 

transfer of technology abroad, and no-exchange-of-funds. Because space research projects 

generally involve major investments of resources, and because NASA is a Government agency, 

NASA‘s counterparts will generally be non-U.S. Government agencies rather than non-U.S. 

universities or private organizations.

Owing to NASA's policy to conduct research with non-U.S. entities on a cooperative, noexchange-of-funds basis, NASA does not normally fund non-U.S. research proposals or nonU.S. research efforts that are part of U.S. research proposals. Rather, cooperative research 

efforts are normally implemented via agreements between NASA and the appropriate non-U.S.

entity. Non-U.S. proposers, whether as primary proposers or as participants in U.S. research 

efforts, are expected to arrange for non-U.S. financing for their portion of the research.

5.7.2 General Guidelines Applicable to Non-U.S. Proposals and Proposals including 

Non-U.S. Participation

All non-U.S. proposals will undergo the same evaluation and selection process as those 

originating in the U.S. All proposals, U.S. and non-U.S., must be typewritten in English and 

must comply with all submission requirements stated in this AO and in Appendix B of this AO.

Requirement 74. Unless otherwise noted, proposals from non-U.S. entities shall not include a 

cost plan unless the proposal involves collaboration with a U.S. institution, in which case a cost 

plan that covers only the participation of the U.S. entity shall be included.
- 36 -

Requirement 75. Proposals from non-U.S. entities and proposals from U.S. entities that include 

non-U.S. participation shall be formally endorsed, through Letters of Commitment, by the 

responsible funding agency in the country of origin. The required elements in a Letter of 

Commitment for a contribution are given in Section 5.8.1. In addition to these required elements, 

endorsements from foreign entities shall indicate that the proposal merits careful consideration 

by NASA and that, if the proposal is selected, sufficient funds will be made available to 

undertake the proposed activity. Officials who are authorized to commit the resources of the nonU.S. funding agencies must sign these Letters of Commitment.

Contributions from non-U.S. sources offer benefits but also represent complexity and risk to a 

project.

Requirement 76. Proposals from U.S. proposers shall include a discussion of mitigation plans, 

where possible, for the failure of funding or contributions to materialize when they are outside 

the control of the PI.

Mitigation may include, but is not limited to, descoping the contributed items and/or holding 

reserves to develop the contribution directly. Note that reserves held for this purpose will be 

considered by NASA to be encumbered. When no mitigation is possible, this must be explicitly 

acknowledged. In addition to budget and technical risk, non-U.S. contributions introduce 

schedule risk for implementing agreements, as well as for obtaining any necessary licenses for 

exchanges of goods and technical data. An adequate and realistic schedule must be allocated for 

having international agreements executed. NASA will not normally initiate development of any 

international agreements until after the downselect decision is made at the conclusion of 

Phase A.

Any proposed non-U.S. participation must be described at the same level of detail as that of U.S. 

partners, including the provision of technical, schedule, and management data. Failure to 

document technical and schedule data, management approaches, or failure to document the 

commitment of team members or funding agencies, may cause a proposal to be found 

unacceptable.

Requirement 77. Any proposed non-U.S. contribution essential to the success of the proposed 

investigation shall be described at the same level of detail as those of U.S. partners (with the 

exception of the cost plan).

Requirement 78. Proposals with non-U.S. participation shall include a table listing: (i) non-U.S. 

participants (individuals, institutions), (ii) roles and responsibilities, (iii) funding organization, 

(iv) approximate value of contribution and method for estimating value, and (v) cross-reference 

to any Letters of Commitment in the proposal appendix. Proposals with non-U.S. participation 

must clearly describe the flow of design requirements (potentially export-controlled information) 

and hardware between U.S. and non-U.S. participants. This description may take the form of a 

flowchart. See Section J.4 of Appendix B.
- 37 -

5.7.3 Agreements with Selected Non-U.S. Participants

Should a non-U.S. proposal or a U.S. proposal with non-U.S. participation be selected, NASA's 

Office of International and Interagency Relations will arrange with the non-U.S. sponsor for the 

proposed participation on a no-exchange-of-funds basis, in which NASA and the non-U.S. 

sponsor will each bear the cost of discharging its respective responsibilities.

It is the policy of NASA to establish formal agreements with non-U.S. partners in cooperation on 

flight missions. Owing to the short duration of the concept study phase, it is not possible for 

NASA to conclude an international agreement prior to the due date for Concept Study Reports. 

Additionally, in some cases, interim agreements may be put in place until a more permanent 

arrangement is reached.

Requirement 79. If applicable, proposals shall show how the Phase A concept study can be 

completed in the absence of an international agreement.

5.7.4 Export Control Guidelines Applicable to Non-U.S. Proposals and Proposals 

including Non-U.S. Participation

Requirement 80. Non-U.S. proposals and domestic proposals that include non-U.S.

participation shall describe plans for compliance with U.S. export laws and regulations, e.g., 22 

CFR Parts120-130 and 15 CFR Parts 730-774, as applicable to the circumstances surrounding 

the particular non-U.S. participation (see Appendix B, Section J.5, for additional detail).

5.8 Additional Proposal Requirements

5.8.1 Letters of Commitment

Letters of Commitment signed by an institutional official must be provided from (i) all 

organizations offering contributions of goods and/or services (both U.S. and non-U.S., but 

excluding Co-I services) on a no-exchange-of-funds basis, including all non-U.S. organizations 

providing hardware or software to the investigation (see Section 5.6.7), and (ii) all major 

organizational partners in the proposal regardless of source of funding. See Appendix B, 

Section J.2, for additional detail.

The required elements in an institutional Letter of Commitment for a contribution are: 

(i) evidence that the institution and/or appropriate Government officials are aware and supportive 

of the proposed investigation; (ii) a precise description of what is being contributed by the 

partner and what assumptions are being made about NASA's role; (iii) a statement that the 

organization intends to provide the contribution or required funding for the investigation if it is 

selected by NASA; (iv) the strongest possible statement of financial commitment from the

responsible organization to assure NASA that all contributions will be provided as proposed,

including whether the contribution and/or funding has been approved and/or what further 

decisions must be made before the funding is committed by the partner; and (v) a signature by an 

official authorized to commit the resource of the organization for participation in the 

investigation (if it is not clear from the signer‘s title that the signer has the necessary authority, 

then the signer‘s authority should be explicitly stated in the Letter).
- 38 -

The required elements in an institutional Letter of Commitment for a major partner are: (i) a 

statement of commitment for the effort that is assigned to that participant in the proposal, (ii) a

description of what is being provided, and (iii) a signature by an official authorized to commit 

the organization.

5.8.1.1 Letters of Commitment for Contributions

An institutional Letter of Commitment for a contribution must contain the required elements 

described in Section 5.8.1.

Requirement 81. For all U.S. organizations offering contributions, proposals shall include 

appropriate Letters of Commitment from both the organization(s) providing any contributed 

property or service and from the organization(s) providing any required funding.

The requirement for Letters of Commitment from non-U.S. organizations offering contributions 

is given in Section 5.7.2 and Requirement 75.

5.8.1.2 Letters of Commitment for Major Partners

Major partners are the organizations, other than the proposing organization, responsible for 

providing science leadership, project management, system engineering, major hardware 

elements, science instruments, integration and test, mission operations, and other major products 

or services as defined by the proposer. All other participants are regarded as not major. Major 

partners are listed in Section (i) of the Table of Proposal Partners (see Appendix B, Section J.1, 

for additional detail).

An institutional Letter of Commitment for a major partner must contain the required elements 

described in Section 5.8.1.

Requirement 82. Unless otherwise explicitly exempted elsewhere in this AO (e.g., 

Section 5.2.5), proposals shall include a Letter of Commitment from each major partner in the 

proposal, regardless of source of funding. For major partners providing one or more 

contributions, only a single Letter of Commitment is required.

5.8.1.3 Personal Letters of Commitment

No personal or institutional Letters of Commitment are required for co-investigators or 

other proposal team members in the Step 1 proposal. A proposal team member is defined 

to be any individual identified on the NASA Solicitation and Proposal Integrated Review 

and Evaluation System (NSPIRES) proposal cover page. Proposal team members indicate 

their commitment to the proposed investigation through NSPIRES (see Appendix B, 

Section A.3, for instructions). Requirements to provide personal and institutional Letters 

of Commitment in Step 2 Concept Study Reports are given in the Guidelines and Criteria 

for the Phase A Concept Study document (available in the Program Library).

Requirement 83. Every proposal team member shall indicate his/her commitment to the 

proposed investigation and, specifically, to the role, responsibilities, and participating 

organization proposed for him/her, through NSPIRES.
- 39 -

5.8.2 Export Controlled Material in Proposals

Under U.S. law and regulations, spacecraft and their specifically designed, modified, or 

configured systems, components, and parts are generally considered "Defense Articles" on the 

United States Munitions List and are, therefore, subject to the provisions of the International 

Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), 22 CFR Parts 120-130.

While inclusion of export controlled material in proposals is not prohibited, proposers are 

advised that the inclusion of such material in proposals may complicate NASA‘s ability to 

evaluate proposals, as NASA may employ the services of non-U.S. citizens, who are not lawful 

permanent residents of the U.S., to review proposals submitted in response to this AO. In order 

to enable proper evaluation of proposals, any export-controlled information subject to ITAR 

must be marked with a notice to that effect.

Requirement 84. If the proposal contains export controlled material, the following statement 

shall be prominently displayed in Section A of the proposal (following the Proposal Summary 

Information):

―The information (data) contained in [insert page numbers or other identification] of this 

proposal is (are) subject to U.S. export laws and regulations. It is furnished to the 

Government with the understanding that it will not be exported without the prior approval of 

the proposer under the terms of an applicable export license or technical assistance 

agreement.‖

Note that it is the proposer‘s responsibility to determine whether any proposal information is 

subject to the provisions of ITAR. Information about U.S. export regulations is available at 

http://www.pmddtc.state.gov/ and at http://www.bis.doc.gov/.

5.9 Program Specific Requirements and Constraints

5.9.1 Schedule Requirements

Requirement 85. Proposals shall propose a launch readiness date no later than December 31, 

2017.

5.9.2 Launch Services

A Discovery investigation will be launched as the primary payload on an expendable launch 

vehicle (ELV) that NASA will provide as Government Furnished Equipment (GFE). Standard 

launch services utilizing a domestic launch vehicle certified as category 3 per NPD 8610.7, 

NASA Launch Services Risk Mitigation Policy for NASA-Owned or NASA-Sponsored 

Payloads/Missions, regardless of the payload classification, will be provided at no charge to the 

PI-Managed Mission Cost. There will be a charge against the PI-Managed Mission Cost for any 

launch services beyond the standard launch services offered. Detailed information on launch 

vehicle options, including a description of standard launch services, is provided in the ELV

Launch Services Information Summary document in the Program Library.

The ELV Launch Services Information Summary describes six categories of launch vehicles in 

the intermediate performance class. The standard service will provide the least capable launch 
- 40 -

vehicle (standard performance class with a 4m fairing). A charge will be counted against the PIManaged Mission Cost for investigations that require the use of more capable launch vehicles as 

shown in Table 2. The costs in Table 2 are firm, fixed costs; proposals should not add margin 

onto them. For proposal purposes, these costs should be treated as decrements to the PI-Managed 

Mission Cost Cap; there is no need to identify which year the costs will be expended nor to 

convert the costs into real year dollars.

Table 2: Charges against the PI-Managed Mission 

Cost for nonstandard launch vehicles and fairings 

in FY 2010 dollars.

FAIRING SIZE

4m 5m

PERFORMANCE 

CLASS

Standard none $14M 

Medium $22M $25M

High $32M $68M

Funds allocated to the PI-Managed Mission Cost cannot be used to purchase a launch vehicle or 

standard launch services beyond those vehicles and services described in this AO. Co-manifested 

or secondary payloads on a U.S. or non-U.S. launch vehicle may not be proposed or considered 

under this AO. Contributed launch services may not be proposed or considered under this AO.

Requirement 86. Proposals shall define the required launch vehicle capability and demonstrate 

that it is compatible with the standard launch services offered.

Requirement 87. If services beyond the standard launch services offered are required, the 

proposal shall include the cost of such services in the PI-Managed Mission Cost.

Launch delay costs as a result of spacecraft or payload delays are not a standard launch service. 

Any such launch-delay costs must be funded out of the PI-Managed Mission Cost and, therefore, 

represent a cost risk to the PI-Managed Mission Cost.

For investigations using radioactive materials, an as-built databook for the launch system (i.e., 

payload and launcher) must be completed under the NASA Launch Services contract no later 

than three years before launch. Launch processing of a mission that utilizes radioactive materials 

(e.g., radioisotope heating units) will involve nonstandard launch services. The costs for these 

services will be included in the PI-Managed Mission Cost for missions not using ASRGs. Costs 

associated with the launch of radioactive materials are shown in Table 3. These are firm, fixed 

costs; proposals should not add margin to them. For proposal purposes, these costs should be 

treated as decrements to the PI-Managed Mission Cost Cap; there is no need to identify which 

year the costs will be expended nor to convert the costs into real year dollars.
- 41 -

Table 3: Costs of nonstandard launch services associated with 

the launch of radioactive material in FY 2010 dollars.

MISSION ATTRIBUTES COST

ASRG

ASRG + RHUs

ASRG + minor sources

ASRG + RHUs + minor sources

$0

RHU

RHU + minor sources $20M

Minor sources with A2 mission multiple between 10 

and 500. $18M

Due to the volatility of the launch services market, NASA cannot ensure which launch vehicles

will be available at the time of the launch deadline specified in Section 5.9.1. Accordingly, 

proposers are advised to plan for compatibility with vehicle families that provide the required 

performance and are expected to be available through spacecraft PDR (see the ELV Launch 

Services Information Summary in the Program Library). It is recommended that payload designs 

accommodate launch environments for these vehicle families.

Requirement 88. Proposals shall discuss flexibility to be accommodated on multiple launch 

vehicle families (i.e., Atlas V, Delta IV, and Falcon 9).

5.9.3 Infusion of NASA-developed Technology

NASA recognizes that it would be desirable to fly new technologies in order to enable scientific 

investigations or to enhance an investigation's science return. Discovery missions potentially 

provide opportunities to infuse advanced technologies developed by NASA and thereby advance 

NASA‘s technology base and enable a broader set of future missions. The 2006 Solar System 

Exploration Roadmap (available in the Program Library) identifies technology development 

needs for solar system exploration and states that NASA will strive to maximize the payoff from 

its technology investments, either by enabling individual missions or by enhancing classes of 

missions with creative solutions. The Roadmap identifies transportation technologies as a 

―highest priority‖ and notes that solar electric propulsion could be ―strongly enhancing‖ for most 

missions.

SMD‘s In–Space Propulsion Technology (ISPT) program has developed several technologies 

that are nearing TRL 6 and that are, therefore, potentially applicable to Discovery missions. 

Three of these technologies are: 1) the NASA‘s Evolutionary Xenon Thruster (NEXT) ion 

propulsion system, 2) the Advanced Material Bi-propellant Rocket (AMBR), and 3) aerocapture. 

ISPT investments in electric propulsion technologies have included completing NEXT, a 0.6-

7kW throttleable gridded ion propulsion system. ISPT investments in chemical propulsion have 

included a high-temperature storable bi-propellant rocket engine providing higher performance 

for lower cost than current state-of-the-art high performance rocket engines. ISPT investments in 

aerocapture have completed the development of a family of efficient thermal protection system 

(TPS) materials and structures; models for aerothermal effects; engineering atmospheric models 

which include Titan, Neptune, Mars, and Venus; guidance, navigation, and control (GN&C) 
- 42 -

algorithms for blunt-body rigid aeroshells; and will complete ground testing of GN&C hardware 

in the loop by the end of 2009.

The Program Library contains a description of the ISPT program and the three ISPT propulsion 

technologies, as well as other propulsion related references:

1) The NASA’s In-Space Propulsion Technology Project Overview, Near-Term Products, 

and Mission Applicability document provides an overview of the ISPT program.

2) In-depth reference documents and briefing packages of the NEXT ion propulsion system, 

the AMBR rocket engine, and aerocapture are provided in the following documents:

a. The NASA’s Evolutionary Xenon Thruster (NEXT) Ion Propulsion System 

Information Summary for Discovery Missions document provides an in-depth 

description of the technology.

b. The NEXT Ion Propulsion System for Solar System Exploration is a standard 

briefing package.

c. The Advanced Materials Bi-propellant Rocket (AMBR) Information Summary

document provides an in-depth description of the technology.

d. The AMBR Engine for Science Missions is a standard briefing package.

e. Aerocapture Information Summary for Discovery Missions document provides an 

in-depth description of the technology.

f. Aerocapture for Discovery Missions is a standard briefing package.

3) The In-Space Propulsion Technology Project Low-Thrust Trajectory Tool Suite

document describes trajectory tools developed by the ISPT program that would be useful 

for determining mission trajectories if NEXT is utilized.

4) The Electric Propulsion Thruster Lifetime Qualification Standard Recommendation

document describes the ISPT project‘s recommendation regarding a standard approach 

for electric propulsion thruster lifetime qualification.

5) The In-Space Propulsion Technologies Minimum Demonstration Requirements document 

describes the minimum hardware and activities required by missions that propose to 

demonstrate ISPT-developed technologies.

In order to maximize the payoff from its technology investments, NASA will provide an 

incentive to encourage the infusion of the NEXT or the AMBR engine or aerocapture into 

Discovery mission proposals in response to this AO. Proposers are offered the option of selecting 

one (or none) of these specific technologies for insertion into their missions. NASA will share in

the flight development costs of the proposed advanced technology, up to a maximum amount 

depending on which technology is proposed:

For missions that utilize NEXT, the cap on the PI-Managed Mission Cost will be raised 

by $19M (FY 2010); 

For missions that utilize AMBR, the cap on the PI-Managed Mission Cost will be raised 

by $5M (FY 2010); 

For lander missions that propose to use aerocapture, the cap on the PI-Managed Mission 

Cost will be raised by $10M (FY 2010). 

For orbiter missions that propose to use aerocapture, the cap will be raised by $20M (FY 

2010). 
- 43 -

To qualify for an incentive infusion, a proposed mission must meet minimum demonstration 

requirements for its chosen technology. These requirements are contained in the document InSpace Propulsion Technologies Minimum Demonstration Requirements located in the Program 

Library.

Proposers will be responsible for the required NEXT, AMBR, or aerocapture flight hardware 

development and integration, including the flight hardware development schedule.

The application and development of flight hardware from the applicable technology will be 

evaluated as described in Section 7.2.4.

In order to continue improving its product development approach and ensure its future products 

are ready to transition to flight development, the ISPT program would like to monitor the NEXT, 

AMBR, or aerocapture flight hardware development; receive IV&V test results; flight 

development lessons learned, and performance data during flight. Any PI considering the use of 

either of these technologies, and requiring further information, should contact David J. 

Anderson, ISTP Program Manager (Acting), at NASA‘s Glenn Research Center (Telephone: 

216-433-8709; E-mail: david.j.anderson@nasa.gov).

[Amended July 13, 2010. New text is bold. Deleted text is struck through.]

[Amended August 2, 2010. New text is in bold.]

SMD‘s Radioisotope Power Systems (RPS) program, in collaboration with the Department of 

Energy (DOE), is developing the Advanced Stirling Radioisotope Generator (ASRG). DOE has 

contracted with Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company and Orbital Sciences Corporation for 

the development, fabrication, and testing of the ASRG. The specifications, qualification 

schedule, and interface control document describing the ASRG can be found in the Program 

Library. Proposers may elect to use up to two ASRGs only if use of a radioisotope power system 

enables their investigation (both Baseline and Threshold Science Missions). Satisfying this 

enabling attribute means that the science goals to be achieved by the proposed mission cannot be 

accomplished reasonably with a nonnuclear power system. NASA will provide two fueled and 

fully qualified ASRGs (valued at $54M FY 2010) as Government Furnished equipment at no 

cost to the proposer. The units will be available for integration at NASA‘s Kennedy Space 

Center no earlier than March September/November 2014. Investigations may choose to use one 

ASRG as a flight unit and the other as a flight spare or to use both ASRGs as flight units. The 

ASRG qualification unit may not be used as a flight spare. The use of radioisotope power 

systems will entail considerations of range and nuclear launch safety requirements in spacecraft 

and mission design.

Requirement 89. If applicable, proposals shall clearly describe the application of ASRG, 

NEXT, AMBR, or aerocapture in the proposed investigation (including how the proposed use 

meets the minimum demonstration guidelines for the chosen technology). See Appendix B, 

Section J.13, for additional details.

Requirement 90. If applicable, the costs associated with ASRG, NEXT, AMBR, or aerocapture 

shall be called out as a separate WBS element in the proposal budget (Table B3).
- 44 -

Requirement 91. Proposals using ASRGs shall describe how their investigation (both Baseline 

and Threshold Science Missions) is enabled by the use of radioisotope power systems and the 

science and mission impacts of not using such systems in a separate appendix. See Appendix B, 

Section J.14, for additional details

Any PI considering the use of ASRGs, and requiring further information, should contact Robert 

Cataldo, at NASA‘s Glenn Research Center (Telephone: 216.977.7082; E-mail: 

Robert.L.Cataldo@nasa.gov).

Requirement 92. Proposals may include the use of no more than one of the above-described 

NASA-developed technologies.

NASA has the responsibility of developing these technologies to TRL-6. As these are technology 

development projects, NASA cannot guarantee the anticipated performance under conditions 

different than those for which they have been designed and tested. It is the responsibility of 

selected proposers to assess any risk inherent in application of these technologies beyond the 

design envelope. The application and scope of any proposed use of NASA-developed technology 

will be evaluated for appropriateness and conformance to the guidelines presented in this section.

Additional information regarding questions about NASA developed technologies is provided in 

Section 6.1.1.

5.9.4 Program Infrastructure Requirements for Mars Missions

Investigations proposing the development of a Mars mission are subject to the 

telecommunication and navigation policies of the Mars Exploration Program (MEP). The MEP 

has developed an integrated telecom and navigation strategy based on an evolving orbital 

infrastructure, standardized, interoperable communications/navigation services, and time-phased 

capabilities matched to the scientific and engineering needs of the Program. The strategy 

involves evolving a Mars Network by implementing a standardized proximity link 

communications/navigation payload (see the Mars Relay Description for Discovery Proposals 

and Electra Mars Proximity Link Communications and Navigation Payload Description 

documents in the Program Library) deployed on every long-lived (greater than one Mars year) 

Mars science orbiter mission. This combined strategy will put in place an initial Mars Network 

infrastructure with gradually increasing capability and with redundant on-orbit assets.

Requirement 93. Although MEP expects to support the Odyssey, Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter 

(MRO), Mars Atmosphere and Volatile Evolution (MAVEN), and ExoMars/Trace Gas Orbiter 

missions as Mars relay communication assets as described in the Mars Relay Description for 

Discovery Proposals, proposers to this AO shall provide sufficient information so that the 

planned use of such infrastructure resources can be evaluated (see Appendix B, especially

Requirement B-35).

As a matter of policy, the MEP requires that missions with more than one Mars year of expected 

life in Mars orbit must carry a UHF communications package (see the Electra Mars Proximity 

Link Communications and Navigation Payload Description document in the Program Library) to 
- 45 -

provide telecommunications support for data relay for future missions and to provide support 

during critical events (see further details in Section 6.5 below). Orbiter missions required to carry 

such a UHF relay will have it provided as GFE at no cost to the proposer, although the cost of its 

integration into the payload shall be included in the PI-Managed Mission Cost. Relay operations 

should not significantly impact the nominal orbiter mission; the UHF relay will be used to 

support missions launched in the 2018 launch opportunity or later. Furthermore, the operations 

of the orbiter UHF relay payload for other Mars missions will be paid for by the MEP.

Requirement 94. Proposals for a Mars orbiter with more than one Mars year of expected life in 

Mars orbit shall include a UHF communications package provided as GFE. Proposals for such 

qualifying missions shall discuss the technical approach, including schedule and cost, for 

implementing the UHF relay in the event of selection.

NASA has developed a smaller version of the Electra payload specially tailored to the mass, 

volume, and power constraints of Mars landers, for flight on the 2011 Mars Science Laboratory 

mission. Known as Electra-Lite, this standardized UHF relay subsystem provides inherent 

interoperability with existing Mars relay infrastructure. Proposed landed missions planning to 

utilize MEP-provided relay services are encouraged to use this payload to fit into the existing 

Mars telecommunications network. The Electra-Lite payload is described in the Electra-Lite 

Mars Proximity Link Communications and Navigation Payload Description document in the 

Program Library. If instead a non-Electra-Lite relay payload is selected, it is incumbent on the 

proposed mission to ensure interoperability with the MEP relay payloads, as described in the 

Mars Relay Description for Discovery Proposals document in the Program Library. 

Requirement 95. Proposals for a Mars lander utilizing a UHF-relay system other than the 

Electra-Lite shall be interoperable with MEP relay payloads as described in the Mars Relay 

Description for Discovery Proposals document in the Program Library.

6. Proposal Submission Information

6.1 Preproposal Activities

6.1.1 Preproposal Conference and Questions

A Preproposal Conference will be held in (Location TBD), in accordance with the schedule in 

Section 3. Further information, including logistics, will be available at the Discovery Acquisition 

Homepage (see Section 6.1.4) prior to the Preproposal Conference.

All interested parties may attend. All expenses and arrangements for attending this meeting are 

the responsibility of the attendees. Note that travel and associated costs of attendance are not 

allowable as direct costs under another Federal Government award, e.g., a contract, grant, or 

cooperative agreement. Government employees may attend and be authorized travel and 

associated costs as a matter of official business.

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

AO. Questions should be sent to the Discovery Program Scientist at the address given in 

Section 6.1.5. NASA personnel will address all questions that have been received no later than 

five working days prior to the Conference. Questions submitted after this date may be addressed 
- 46 -

at the Conference as time permits and as appropriate answers can be generated. Anonymity of 

the authors of all questions will be preserved. Presentations made at the Preproposal Conference, 

including answers to all questions addressed at the conference, will be posted on the Discovery

Acquisition Homepage (see Section 6.1.4) approximately two weeks after this event. 

Additional questions and answers subsequent to the conference will also appear in this location, 

if necessary. Questions may be submitted to the Discovery Program Scientist at the address 

given in Section 6.1.5 until 14 days before the proposal due date given in Section 3. It is 

expected that all questions and answers will be posted in the FAQ at Discovery Acquisition 

Homepage (see Section 6.1.4).

For questions about NASA developed technology including ASRGs, NASA will endeavor to 

provide as complete answers as available resources (e.g., time, funding, technical capabilities 

such as models and other analysis tools) permit. However responses based solely on analysis and 

not on testing carry with them inherent uncertainty that NASA may not be able to quantify and 

cannot eliminate; proposers assume any risk related to these uncertainties. NASA may provide 

the proposer‘s questions or otherwise consult with NASA contractors, DOE, or DOE‘s 

contractors in order to respond to questions; under these circumstances, the contractors will be 

bound by appropriate non-disclosure agreements and/or conflict of interest avoidance plans.

6.1.2 Notice of Intent to Propose

To assist the planning of the proposal evaluation process, NASA strongly encourages all 

prospective proposers to submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to propose, before the NOI submittal 

deadline specified in Section 3. Material in a NOI is deemed confidential and will be used for 

NASA planning purposes only. Submission of a NOI is not required for the submission of a 

proposal to this solicitation. Those who submit NOIs will receive any Discovery Program 

updates or AO amendments that may occur, up to the time of the proposal submittal deadline 

(see also Section 6.1.4).

A NOI is submitted electronically by entering the requested information at 

http://nspires.nasaprs.com/. Registration on the NSPIRES website is required to submit NOIs and 

proposals. Proposers who experience difficulty in using the NSPIRES site should contact the 

Help Desk by E-mail at nspires-help@nasaprs.com for assistance.

The following information (to the extent that it is known by the NOI due date) is requested for 

the NOI:

(a) Name, address, telephone number, fax number, E-mail address, and institutional 

affiliation of the PI.

(b) Full names and institutional affiliations of each known Co-I. If any Co-Is or other 

proposal team members are from non-U.S. institutions, the vehicle by which these people 

expect to be funded should be identified in the comments box on the NOI form.

(c) Anticipated launch vehicle performance class.

(d) A brief statement (150 words or less) for each of the following:

(i) science objectives of the proposed mission;

(ii) identification of new technologies that may be employed as part of the mission, 

including but not limited to NASA-developed technologies.
- 47 -

(e) The name of the organizational lead from each organization (industrial, academic, 

nonprofit, and/or Federal) included in the proposing team, and the organization‘s role in 

the proposed investigation, as may be known at the time of the NOI.

6.1.3 Teaming Interest

As a result of recent AOs similar to this one, commercial aerospace and technology 

organizations have requested a forum to inform potential proposers of their services and/or 

products. NASA is willing to offer this service with the understanding that the Agency does not 

endorse any information thus transmitted and does not accept responsibility for the capabilities 

or actions of these organizations. The organizations listed on the Discovery Teaming Interest 

page of the Discovery Acquisition Homepage (see address given in Section 6.1.4) have 

expressed interest in teaming with other organizations on Discovery proposals. This is not a 

comprehensive list of organizations that are capable of teaming; it is simply a list of those 

organizations that have asked to be included. Proposers are not required to team with any 

organization on this list.

6.1.4 Program Library and Acquisition Home Page

The Discovery Program Library provides additional regulations, policies, and background 

information on the Discovery Program. Information on the Program Library is contained in 

Appendix D. The Program Library is accessible at http://discovery.larc.nasa.gov/dpl.html.

A Discovery Acquisition Homepage, available at http://discovery.larc.nasa.gov/, will provide 

updates and any AO addenda during the Discovery AO solicitation process. It will provide links 

to the Program Library, information about the preproposal conference, a list of potential teaming 

partners, and questions and answers regarding the AO.

Updates to the AO and any amendments will be posted on the NSPIRES website. A link will be 

provided on the Discovery Acquisition Homepage to the NSPIRES index page for the AO.

6.1.5 Point of Contact for Further Information

Inquiries about this AO may be directed to the Discovery Program Scientist:

Dr. Michael H. New

Planetary Science Division

Science Mission Directorate

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Washington, DC 20546-0001

Telephone: 202-358-1766

E-mail: michael.h.new@nasa.gov

6.2 Proposal Preparation and Submission

6.2.1 Structure of the Proposal

General NASA guidance for proposals is given in Appendix A of this AO, which is considered 

binding unless specifically amended in this AO. A uniform proposal format is required from all 

proposers to aid in proposal evaluation. The required proposal format and contents are 
- 48 -

summarized in Appendix B. Failure to follow Appendix B may result in reduced ratings during 

the evaluation process or, in some cases, could lead to rejection of the proposal without review.

Requirement 96. Proposals shall conform to the uniform proposal format outlined in 

Appendix B.

6.2.2 Certifications

The authorizing institutional signature on the proposal certifies that the proposing institution has 

read and is in compliance with the three required certifications printed in full in Appendix H. 

Therefore, it is not necessary to separately submit these certifications with the proposal.

If the certifications need to be amended, they may be submitted as an additional proposal 

appendix.

6.2.3 Submission of Proposals

Requirement 97. The original signed proposal and 65 paper copies, each of which contains an 

attached, clearly labeled CD-ROM that contains electronic proposal files (see Appendix B), shall

be delivered to the following address by the proposal submittal deadline specified in Section 3.

[Partially repeats Requirement 1]

[Updated on August 10, 2010, with new mailing address.]

NASA Research and Education Support Services (NRESS)

Suite 500

2345 Crystal Drive

Arlington, VA 22202

Phone for commercial delivery: 202-479-9030

NOTICE TO PROPOSERS: At the time of AO release, the location of NASA's 

peer review support services is being moved. The new mailing address is not 

known at this time. No later than August 1, 2010, the AO will be clarified to 

include the shipping address for proposals in Section 6.2.3, and the new address 

will be posted on the Discovery Acquisition Homepage (see Section 6.1.4).

NASA will notify proposers that their proposals have been received. Proposers who have not 

received this confirmation within two weeks after submittal of their proposals should contact the

Discovery Program Scientist at the address given in Section 6.1.5.

Proposals received after the submittal deadline will be treated in accordance with Appendix A, 

Section VII.

6.2.4 Electronic Submission of Proposal Summary Information

This AO requires that proposal summary information, referred to as the Electronic Cover Page, 

must be submitted electronically to NSPIRES, NASA‘s master proposal database system located 
- 49 -

at http://nspires.nasaprs.com/. This data site is secure and all information entered is strictly for 

NASA‘s use.

Potential proposers should access this site well in advance of the proposal due date to familiarize 

themselves with its structure and to enter the requested identifier information. Every individual 

named as a proposal team member on the proposal‘s Electronic Cover Page must be registered in

NSPIRES. Such individuals must register themselves; that is, no one may register a second party, 

even the PI of a proposal in which that person is committed to participate. The proposal‘s 

Electronic Cover Page must be submitted electronically by one of the officials at the proposing

organization who is authorized to make such a submission. Every organization that intends to 

submit a proposal to NASA in response to this AO must be registered in NSPIRES. Such 

registration must be performed by the organization‘s Electronic Business Point-Of-Contact 

(EBPOC) in the Central Contractor Registry (CCR).

Requirement 98. The proposing organization and all individuals named as proposal team 

members on the Electronic Cover Page shall be registered in NSPIRES.

All proposal team members shall indicate their commitment to the proposed investigation 

through NSPIRES (see Requirement 83).

The same proposal summary information must be submitted on the Electronic Cover Page as is 

in Section A of the proposal. The Electronic Cover Page may be submitted either before or after 

the proposal is submitted, as long as the Electronic Cover Page is submitted no later than the 

proposal due date given in Section 3. This means that the Electronic Cover Page may be 

finalized after the proposal is completed to ensure that the Electronic Cover Page has identical 

information as Section A of the proposal. Alternatively the Electronic Cover Page may be 

submitted first and a printout of the Electronic Cover Page may be included in Section A of the 

proposal.

Requirement 99. The Electronic Cover Page shall contain information that is identical to the 

information contained in Section A of the proposal.

Requirement 100. The Electronic Cover Page shall be submitted in NSPIRES by an authorized 

organizational representative (AOR) of the proposing organization, and it shall be submitted by 

the proposal submittal deadline specified in Section 3. [Partially repeats Requirement 2]

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) on the use of NSPIRES can be accessed through the 

NSPIRES Proposal Online Help site at http://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/help.do.

Additional instructions for submitting the Electronic Cover Page are given in Appendix B, 

Section A.2.
- 50 -

7. Proposal Evaluation, Selection, and Implementation

7.1 Overview of the Proposal Evaluation and Selection Process

7.1.1 Evaluation Process

All proposals will be initially screened to determine their compliance to requirements and 

constraints of this AO. Additional compliance checks occur during the evaluation process. 

Proposals that do not comply may be declared noncompliant and returned to the proposer 

without further review. A submission compliance checklist is provided in Appendix F. This 

checklist provides proposers a list of the items that NASA will check for compliance before 

releasing a proposal for evaluation. This checklist is for the convenience of proposers; it is not

required to be submitted as part of a proposal.

Compliant proposals will be evaluated against the criteria specified in Section 7.2 by panels of 

individuals who are peers of the proposers. Proposals will be evaluated by more than one panel 

(e.g., a science panel and a technical/management/cost panel); each panel will evaluate proposals 

against different criteria. Panel members will be instructed to evaluate every proposal 

independently without comparison to other proposals. These panels may be augmented through 

the solicitation of nonpanel (mail in) reviews, which the panels have the right to accept in whole 

or in part, or to reject.

Proposers should be aware that, during the evaluation and selection process, NASA may request 

clarification of specific points in a proposal; if so, such a request from NASA and the proposer‘s 

response must be in writing. In particular, before finalizing the evaluation of the feasibility of the 

mission implementation (see Section 7.2.4), NASA will request clarification on specific, 

potential major weaknesses in the feasibility of mission implementation that have been identified 

in the proposal. NASA will request such clarification uniformly from all proposers. The ability 

of proposers to provide clarification to NASA is extremely limited, as NASA does not intend to 

enter into discussions with proposers. A typical limited response is to direct NASA‘s attention to 

pertinent parts of the proposal without providing further elaboration.

7.1.2 Categorization and Steering Process

An ad hoc categorization subcommittee of the SMD AO Steering Committee, composed wholly 

of Civil Servants and Intergovernmental Personnel Act appointees (some of whom may be from 

Government agencies other than NASA) and appointed by the Associate Administrator for the 

Science Mission Directorate, will convene to consider the peer review results and, based on the 

evaluations, categorize the proposals in accordance with procedures required by NFS 

1872.403-1(e). The categories are defined as follows:

Category I. Well conceived and scientifically and technically sound investigations pertinent 

to the goals of the program and the 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 data that 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.
- 51 -

Category II. Well conceived and scientifically or technically sound investigations which are 

recommended for acceptance, but at a lower priority than Category I.

Category III. Scientifically or technically sound investigations which require further 

development. Category III investigations may be funded for development and may be 

reconsidered at a later time for the same or other opportunities.

Category IV. Proposed investigations which are recommended for rejection for the particular 

opportunity under consideration, whatever the reason.

A sitting panel of the SMD AO Steering Committee will then review the results of the 

evaluations and categorizations. The AO Steering Committee will conduct an independent 

assessment of the evaluation and categorization processes regarding their compliance to 

established policies and practices, as well as the completeness, self-consistency, and adequacy of 

all supporting materials.

7.1.3 Selection Process

After the review by the AO Steering Committee, the final evaluation results will be presented to 

the Associate Administrator for the Science Mission Directorate, who will make the final 

selection(s). As the Selection Official, the SMD Associate Administrator may consult with senior 

members of SMD and the Agency concerning the selections.

As part of the selection decision, a decision will be made as to whether or not any Category III 

proposals will receive funding for technology development.

7.2 Evaluation Criteria

7.2.1 Overview of Evaluation Criteria

The evaluation criteria, which are defined more fully in the following sections and will be used 

to evaluate proposals as described in Section 7.1.1, are as follows:

The scientific merit of the proposed investigation;

The scientific implementation merit and feasibility of the proposed investigation; and

The technical, management, and cost (TMC) feasibility of the proposed approach for 

mission implementation, including cost risk.

The proposal categorizations, discussed in Section 7.1.2, will be based on these criteria. For 

categorization, scientific merit is weighted approximately 40%, scientific implementation merit 

and feasibility is weighted approximately 30%, and TMC feasibility, including cost risk, is 

weighted approximately 30%.

These criteria are defined more fully in the following sections. Evaluation findings for each 

evaluation criterion will be documented with narrative text in the form of specific major and 

minor strengths and weaknesses, as well as an adjectival summary score. The adjectival 
- 52 -

summary scores for the first two criteria (scientific merit and scientific implementation merit) 

will be reported as Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair, or Poor, as defined in the table below.

Summary 

Evaluation Basis for Summary Evaluation

Excellent

A comprehensive, thorough, and compelling proposal of exceptional 

merit that fully responds to the objectives of the AO as documented 

by numerous and/or significant strengths and having no major 

weaknesses.

Very Good

A fully competent proposal of very high merit that fully responds to 

the objectives of the AO, whose strengths fully outbalance any 

weaknesses.

Good

A competent proposal that represents a credible response to the AO, 

having neither significant strengths nor weakness and/or whose 

strengths and weaknesses essentially balance.

Fair A proposal that provides a nominal response to the AO, but whose 

weaknesses outweigh any perceived strengths.

Poor

A seriously flawed proposal having one or more major weaknesses 

(e.g., an inadequate or flawed plan of research or lack of focus on the 

objectives of the AO).

The third criterion, technical merit and feasibility, including cost risk, will be reported as Low 

Risk, Medium Risk, or High Risk, as defined in the table below.

Summary 

Evaluation Basis for Summary Evaluation

Low Risk

There are no problems evident in the proposal that cannot be 

normally solved within the time and cost proposed. Problems are not 

of sufficient magnitude to doubt the Proposer‘s capability to 

accomplish the investigation well within the available resources.

Medium Risk

Problems have been identified, but are considered within the 

proposal team‘s capabilities to correct within available resources 

with good management and application of effective engineering 

resources. Mission design may be complex and resources tight.

High Risk One or more problems are of sufficient magnitude and complexity as 

to be deemed unsolvable within the available resources. 

7.2.2 Scientific Merit of the Proposed Investigation

The information provided in a proposal will be used to assess the intrinsic scientific merit of the 

proposed investigation. Scientific merit will be evaluated for the Baseline Science Mission and 

the Threshold Science Mission; science enhancements options beyond the Baseline Science 
- 53 -

Mission will not contribute to the assessment of the scientific merit of the proposed 

investigation. The factors for scientific merit include the following:

Factor A-1. Compelling nature and scientific priority of the proposed investigation's 

science goals and objectives. This factor includes the clarity of the goals and objectives; 

how well the goals and objectives reflect program, Agency, and National priorities; the 

potential scientific impact of the investigation on program, Agency, and National science 

objectives; and the potential for fundamental progress, as well as filling gaps in our 

knowledge relative to the current state of the art.

Factor A-2. Programmatic value of the proposed investigation. This factor includes the 

unique value of the investigation to make scientific progress in the context of other 

ongoing and planned missions; the relationship to the other elements of NASA's science 

programs; how well the investigation may synergistically support ongoing or planned 

missions by NASA and other agencies; and the necessity for a space mission to realize 

the goals and objectives.

Factor A-3. Likelihood of scientific success. This factor includes how well the anticipated 

measurements support the goals and objectives; the adequacy of the anticipated data to 

complete the investigation and meet the goals and objectives; and the appropriateness of 

the mission requirements for guiding development and ensuring scientific success.

Factor A-4. Scientific value of the Threshold Science Mission. This factor includes the 

scientific value of the Threshold Science Mission using the standards in the first factor of 

this section and whether that value is sufficient to justify the proposed cost of the 

mission.

Factors A-1 through A-3 are evaluated for the Baseline Science Mission assuming it is 

implemented as proposed and achieves technical success. Factor A-4 is similarly evaluated for 

the Threshold Science Mission.

This evaluation will result in narrative text, including specific major and minor strengths and 

weaknesses, as well as an appropriate adjectival rating for the scientific merit of the 

investigation.

7.2.3 Scientific Implementation Merit and Feasibility of the Investigation

The information provided in a proposal will be used to assess merit of the plan for completing 

the proposed investigation, including the scientific implementation merit, feasibility, resiliency, 

and probability of scientific success of the proposed investigation. The factors for scientific 

implementation merit and feasibility include the following:

Factor B-1. Merit of the instruments and mission design for addressing the science goals 

and objectives. This factor includes the degree to which the proposed mission will 

address the goals and objectives; the appropriateness of the selected instruments and 

mission design for addressing the goals and objectives; the degree to which the proposed 

instruments and mission can provide the necessary data, including details on data 

collection strategy and plans; and the sufficiency of the data gathered to complete the 

scientific investigation.
- 54 -

Factor B-2. Probability of technical success. This factor includes the maturity and 

technical readiness of the instruments; the adequacy of the plan to develop the 

instruments within the proposed cost and schedule; the robustness of those plans, 

including recognition of risks and mitigation plans for retiring those risks; the likelihood 

of success in developing any new technology that represents an untested advance in the 

state of the art; the ability of the development team - both institutions and individuals - to 

successfully implement those plans; and the likelihood of success for both the 

development and the operation of the instruments within the mission design.

Factor B-3. Merit of the data and/or sample analysis plan. This factor includes the merit 

of plans for data and/or sample analysis, data archiving, and/or sample curation to meet 

the goals and objectives; to result in the publication of science discoveries in the 

professional literature; and to preserve data and samples of value to the science 

community. Considerations in this factor include assessment of planning and budget 

adequacy and evidence of plans for well-documented, high-level data products and 

software usable to the entire science community; assessment of adequate resources for 

physical interpretation of data; an assessment of the planning and budget adequacy and 

evidence of plans for the preliminary evaluation and curation of any returned samples; 

reporting scientific results in refereed journals; and assessment of the proposed plan for 

the timely release of the data to the public domain for enlarging its science impact.

Factor B-4. Science resiliency. This factor includes both developmental and operational 

resiliency. Developmental resiliency includes the approach to descoping the Baseline 

Science Mission to the Threshold Science Mission in the event that development 

problems force reductions in scope. Operational resiliency includes the ability to 

withstand adverse circumstances, the capability to degrade gracefully, and the potential to 

recover from anomalies in flight.

Factor B-5. Probability of science team success. This factor will be evaluated by 

assessing the experience, expertise, and organizational structure of the science team and 

the mission design in light of any proposed instruments. The role of each Co-Investigator 

will be evaluated for necessary contributions to the proposed investigation; the inclusion 

of Co-Is who do not have a well defined and appropriate role may be cause for 

downgrading of the proposal.

Factor B-6. Merit of any science enhancement options (SEOs), if proposed. This factor 

includes assessing the appropriateness of activities selected to enlarge the science impact 

of the mission; the potential of the selected activities to enlarge the science impact of the 

mission; and the appropriate costing of the selected activities. The peer review panel will 

inform NASA whether the evaluation of the proposed SEO(s) impacted the overall rating 

for scientific implementation merit and feasibility. Lack of an SEO will have no impact 

on the proposal‘s overall rating for scientific implementation merit and feasibility.

Student Collaboration proposals, if any, will be evaluated only for the impact they have on 

science implementation feasibility to the extent that they are not separable; student collaboration 

proposals will not be penalized in Step 1 for any inherent higher cost, schedule, or technical risk, 

as long as the student collaboration is shown to be clearly separable from the implementation of 

the Baseline Science Mission. The intrinsic merit of student collaborations will not be evaluated 

at this time.
- 55 -

This evaluation will result in narrative text, including specific major and minor strengths and 

weaknesses, as well as an appropriate adjectival rating for the scientific implementation merit 

and feasibility of the scientific investigation.

7.2.4 Feasibility of the Mission Implementation, Including Cost Risk

The technical and management approaches of all submitted investigations will be evaluated to 

assess the likelihood that they can be successfully implemented as proposed, including an 

assessment of the likelihood of their completion within the proposed cost and schedule. The 

factors for feasibility of mission implementation include the following:

Factor C-1. Adequacy and robustness of the instrument implementation plan. The 

maturity and technical readiness of the instrument complement will be assessed, as will 

the ability of the instruments to meet mission requirements. This factor includes an 

assessment of the instrument design, accommodation, interface, heritage, and technology 

readiness. This factor includes an assessment of the instrument hardware and software 

designs, heritage, and margins. This factor includes an assessment of the proposer's 

understanding of the processes, products, and activities required to accomplish 

development and integration of the instrument complement. This factor also includes 

adequacy of the plans for instrument systems engineering and for dealing with 

environmental concerns. This factor includes an assessment of plans for the development 

and use of new instrument technology and the adequacy of backup plans to mature 

systems within the proposed cost and schedule when technologies having a TRL less than 

6 are proposed.

Factor C-2. Adequacy and robustness of the mission design and plan for mission 

operations. This factor includes an assessment of the overall mission design and mission 

architecture, the spacecraft design and design margins (including margins for launch 

mass, delta-V, and propellant), the concept for mission operations (including 

communication, navigation/tracking/trajectory analysis, and ground systems – hardware 

and software – and facilities), and the plans for launch services. This factor includes 

mission resiliency – the flexibility to recover from problems during both development 

and operations – including the technical resource reserves and margins, system and 

subsystem redundancy, and reductions and other changes that can be implemented 

without impact to the Baseline Science Mission.

Factor C-3. Adequacy and robustness of the flight systems. This factor includes an 

assessment of the flight hardware and software designs, heritage, and margins. This 

factor includes an assessment of the proposer's understanding of the processes, products, 

and activities required to accomplish development and integration of all elements (flight 

systems, ground and data systems, etc.). This factor includes an assessment of the 

adequacy of the plans for spacecraft systems engineering, qualification, verification, 

mission assurance, launch operations, and entry/descent/landing. This factor includes the 

plans for the development and use of new technology and the adequacy of backup plans 

to ensure success of the mission when technologies having a TRL less than 6 are 

proposed. The maturity and technical readiness of the spacecraft, subsystems, and 

operations systems will be assessed. The adequacy of the plan to mature systems within 

the proposed cost and schedule, the robustness of those plans, including recognition of 
- 56 -

risks and mitigation plans for retiring those risks, and the likelihood of success in 

developing any new technologies will be assessed.

Factor C-4. Adequacy and robustness of the management approach and schedule, 

including the capability of the management team. This factor includes: the adequacy of 

the proposed organizational structure and WBS; the management approach including 

project level systems engineering; the roles, qualifications, and experience of the PI, PM, 

other named key management team members, and implementing organization, mission 

management team, and known partners; the commitment, spaceflight experience, and 

relevant performance of the PI, PM, other named key management team members, and 

implementing organization, mission management team, and known partners against the 

needs of the investigation; the commitments of partners and contributors; and the team‘s 

understanding of the scope of work covering all elements of the mission, including 

contributions. Also evaluated under this factor is the adequacy of the proposed risk 

management approach including any risk mitigation plans for new technologies, any 

long-lead items, and the adequacy and availability of any required manufacturing, test, or 

other facilities. The approach to any proposed descoping of mission capabilities will be 

assessed against the proposed Baseline Science Mission. The plans for managing the risk 

of contributed critical goods and services will be assessed, including the plans for any 

international participation, the commitment of partners and contributors, as documented 

in Letters of Commitment, and the adequacy of contingency plans for coping with the 

failure of a proposed cooperative arrangement or contribution. This factor also includes 

assessment of proposal elements such as the relationship of the work to the project 

schedule, the project element interdependencies, the associated schedule margins, and an 

assessment of the likelihood of launching by the proposed launch date. Also evaluated 

under this factor are the proposed project and schedule management tools to be used on 

the project along with the subcontracting plan including small and small disadvantaged 

businesses.

Factor C-5. Adequacy and robustness of the cost plan, including cost feasibility and cost 

risk. This factor includes proposal elements such as cost, cost risk, cost realism, and cost 

completeness including assessment of the basis of estimate, the adequacy of the 

approach, the methods and rationale used to develop the estimated cost, the discussion of 

cost risks, the allocation of cost reserves by phase, and the team‘s understanding of the 

scope of work (covering all elements of the mission, including contributions). Proposals 

will be evaluated for the adequacy of the cost reserves and whether proposals with 

inadequate cost reserves demonstrate a thorough understanding of the cost risks. This 

factor also includes an assessment of the proposed cost relative to estimates generated 

using parametric models and analogies. Also evaluated under this factor are the proposed 

cost management tools to be used on the project.

The application and scope of any proposed use of NASA-developed technology will be 

evaluated for appropriateness and conformance to the guidelines in Section 5.9.3. The 

implementation feasibility and risk of the proposed use of NASA-developed technology will be 

evaluated against the factors in this section. All proposers will receive feedback, if applicable, on 

their proposed use of NASA-developed technology.
- 57 -

When appropriate, Factor C-2 will include an assessment of proposed planetary protection 

provisions to avoid potential biological contamination (forward and backward) that may be 

associated with the mission.

Student Collaboration proposals, if any, will be evaluated only for the impact they have on 

overall mission feasibility to the extent that they are not separable; student collaboration 

proposals will not be penalized in Step 1 for any inherent higher cost, schedule, or technical risk, 

as long as the student collaboration is shown to be clearly separable from the implementation of 

the baseline mission. The intrinsic merit of student collaborations will not be evaluated at this 

time.

This evaluation will result in narrative text, including specific major and minor strengths and 

weaknesses, as well as an appropriate risk rating for the feasibility of mission implementation.

7.3 Selection Factors

As described in Section 7.1.3, the results of the proposal evaluations based on the criteria above 

and the categorizations will be considered in the selection process.

Considering the critical role of the PI, PM, and their institutions, past performance (especially in 

meeting cost and schedule constraints) will be an important risk factor in the selection of an 

investigation under this AO.

The Selection Official may take into account a wide range of programmatic factors in deciding 

whether or not to select any proposals for Phase A study and in selecting among top-rated 

proposals, including, but not limited to, planning and policy considerations, available funding, 

and maintaining a programmatic and scientific balance across SMD. While SMD develops and 

evaluates its program strategy in close consultation with the scientific community through a wide 

variety of advisory groups, the SMD program is an evolving activity that ultimately depends 

upon the most current Administration policies and budgets, as well as program objectives and 

priorities that can change quickly based on, among other things, new discoveries from ongoing 

missions.

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

will be to maximize scientific return and minimize implementation risk while advancing NASA's 

science goals and objectives within the available budget for this program. Therefore, the 

proposed PI-Managed Mission Cost will be considered in the final selection of investigations 

through this AO. Depending on the availability of proposals of appropriate merit, this objective 

may be achieved by the selection of investigation(s) at the PI-Managed Mission Cost cap for this 

AO, one or more investigations significantly below the PI-Managed Mission Cost cap that would 

allow a more rapid release of the next AO, or a combination of investigations of various costs. 

Proposers are encouraged to propose well below the PI-Managed Mission Cost cap, as that 

permits greater flexibility and robustness in the Program and in SMD.
- 58 -

7.4 Implementation of Selected Proposals

7.4.1 Notification of Selection

Following selection, the PIs of the selected investigations will be notified by telephone, followed 

by formal written notification which may include any special conditions or terms of the offer of 

selection (e.g., partial selections, see Section II of Appendix A) and any special instructions for 

the concept study. The formal notification will also include instructions for scheduling a 

debriefing at which any issues noted during the evaluation that may require attention during the 

Phase A concept study will be discussed, as well as instructions for attending the Project 

Initiation Conference.

The Selection Statement for this solicitation, which is signed by the Selection Official, may 

include information from the proposal summary (abstract) for any proposal, whether or not it is 

selected. Since the Selection Statement is a releasable document, the proposal summary 

(abstract) shall not contain proprietary or confidential information that the submitters wish to 

protect from public disclosure

7.4.2 Award Administration and Funding

Oversight management responsibilities have been assigned to the Discovery Program Office at 

the Marshall Space Flight Center. The responsibilities of the Program Office will include 

oversight of mission implementation, coordination of Government-furnished services, equipment 

and facilities, and contract management for selected investigations.

It is anticipated that the Program Office will provide funding to each selected investigation. The 

award of the Phase A concept study is to be initiated as soon as possible after notification of 

selection. NASA Centers will receive funding via intra-agency funding mechanisms. For each 

Phase A selection, NASA will request Statements of Work (SOWs) and cost and pricing data. If 

more than one contractual arrangement between NASA and the proposing team is required, a 

separate SOW and budget breakout is required for each organization. For Phase A contracts that 

exceed $650K, the contractor will be required to provide cost and pricing data to support the 

Phase A cost estimate and to certify the cost proposed for the Phase A contract in accordance 

with FAR 15.406-2. The contactor will also be required to provide cost and pricing data, and a 

SOW, for a 5-month Phase B bridge option.

For those investigations that are selected, it will be in the best interest of their PI-led mission 

management teams to provide SOWs and cost and pricing data in as timely a manner as possible. 

The process of awarding contracts cannot begin until SOWs and cost and pricing data have been 

received, and funds cannot be provided to the implementing organizations until this process has 

been completed.

SOWs will be required for selected investigations regardless of whether a proposing organization 

is Governmental or non-Governmental. SOWs will include the requirement for a Phase A 

Concept Study Report as described in the Guidelines and Criteria for the Phase A Concept Study 

document available in the Program Library, as well as general task statements for Phases B 

through F. SOWs will include the following as a minimum: Scope of Work, Deliverables 
- 59 -

(including science data), and Government Responsibilities (as applicable). SOWs need not be 

more than a few pages in length.

Each Phase A contract will contain a priced option for a Bridge Phase, to be exercised upon 

investigations down-selected to proceed into Phase B. The Bridge Phase option will allow work 

to be continued uninterrupted under the contract after a Step-2 downselection decision is made. 

The Bridge Phase is intended to cover a five-month period of Phase B effort to provide program 

continuity while negotiations are completed to modify the contract to include Phases B, C/D, and 

E/F. The Bridge Phase option will be exercised only on the contract for the mission that is 

chosen during the Step-2 downselection process to continue beyond the Phase A concept study. 

Additional phases will be added to the contract after each Phase has been approved through the 

program review process.

7.4.3 Conduct of the Phase A Concept Study

The concept studies are intended to provide NASA with more definitive information regarding 

the cost, risk, and feasibility of the investigations, as well as a detailed plan for the conduct of an 

appropriate education and public outreach program and an optional student collaboration, before 

final selection for implementation. The product of the concept studies is a Phase A Concept 

Study Report to be delivered by each selected investigation team approximately 9 months 

following the establishment of initial contracts. The content and format of the study reports are 

specified in the Guidelines and Criteria for the Phase A Concept Study document in the Program 

Library.

The PI will provide in the Phase A Concept Study Report a proposed set of Level 1 

requirements, including the criteria for full mission success satisfying the Baseline Science 

Mission and the criteria for minimum mission success satisfying the Threshold Science Mission. 

The PI will also provide in the Phase A Concept Study Report the allocation of the proposed cost 

reserves among the appropriate WBS elements. The PI-Managed Mission Cost will not increase 

by more than 20% from that in the Step 1 proposal to that in the Phase A Concept Study Report, 

and in any case will not exceed the PI-Managed Mission Cost cap. The NASA review of the 

completed Concept Study Report will include all mission facets, including E/PO. Risk reduction 

that has been accomplished during Phase A will be closely reviewed. NASA may request 

presentations and/or site visits to review the final concept study results with the investigators.

Each mission‘s Concept Study Report must conclude with a commitment by the PI for the cost, 

schedule, and scientific performance of the investigation. For each Phase B selection, and unless 

otherwise stated in the selection letter, the selected mission‘s cost cap will be set at the Concept 

Study Report‘s proposed cost.

NASA cannot guarantee that the proposed funding profile can be accommodated within the 

Discovery Program‘s budget. A funding profile for the selected mission will be negotiated during 

Phase B.
- 60 -

7.4.4 Downselection of Investigations

The SMD Associate Administrator will make downselection decisions based on the evaluation of 

the Phase A Concept Study Reports and on programmatic considerations. The criteria for 

evaluating the concept study are as follows:

Scientific merit of the proposed investigation;

Scientific implementation merit of the proposed investigation;

Technical, management, and cost feasibility, including cost risk, of the proposed 

investigation; and

Merit of plans for E/PO, including any student collaboration proposed.

The evaluation criteria and downselection factors are described in the Guidelines and Criteria 

for the Phase A Concept Study document in the Program Library. Any changes to science and 

science implementation contained in the Phase A Concept Study Report will be carefully 

evaluated. Assuming no changes to the first two criteria, the emphasis during downselection will 

be on the latter two.

At the conclusion of Phase A, it is anticipated that the Selecting Official will continue a single

investigation into the subsequent phases of mission development for flight and operation. The 

target date for this continuation decision (i.e. ―down-selection‖) is given in Section 3.

An investigation may be downselected to enter Phase B or may be downselected for a funded 

Extended Phase A so they can retire one or more risks before they are allowed to proceed to 

Phase B. For investigations selected to enter Phase B immediately, the downselect serves as the 

Initial Confirmation Review gate (KDP-B); an investigation downselected for an Extended Phase 

A must subsequently pass an Initial Confirmation Review gate (KDP-B) with the SMD Program 

Management Council (PMC) before entering Phase B. There is no guarantee that an investigation 

downselected for an Extended Phase A will be approved to enter Phase B, even if all risks have 

been retired during the Extended Phase A. 

Upon a continuation decision, NASA will execute the Bridge Phase option and begin to provide 

Phase B funding for the project that is continued beyond the Phase A concept study. During the 

Bridge Phase, NASA and the continued project will negotiate and sign a contract modification 

necessary for the remaining portion of Phase B. Deliverables for Phase B will be negotiated 

during the Bridge Phase, on the basis of information provided in the Concept Study Report.

In no case is NASA required to exercise any option. NASA will not exercise any contract option 

nor continue funding those investigations not selected to proceed. For those investigations that 

are not continued, the contracts will be allowed to terminate without further expense to NASA.

Every investigation team will be offered a debriefing of the evaluations of its Concept Study 

Report.

Should a non-U.S. proposal or a U.S. proposal with non-U.S. participation be selected, NASA's 

Office of External Relations, Science Division, will arrange with the non-U.S. sponsoring agency 

for the proposed participation on a no-exchange-of-funds basis, in which NASA and the nonU.S. sponsoring agency will each bear the cost of discharging their respective responsibilities. 
- 61 -

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

a letter of notification by NASA with a subsequent exchange of letters between NASA and the 

sponsoring governmental agency or a formal Agency-to-Agency memorandum of understanding.

The contract or other funding mechanism for further formulation and implementation will 

conform to all applicable Federal and NASA procurement requirements. A Draft Model Contract

for Phase B, which includes the clause, ―Advanced Agreement to Add Additional Phases,‖ is 

available in the Program Library.

7.4.5 Confirmation of Investigations

Per NM 7120-81, at the end of Phase B, NASA will conduct an independent review of the 

investigation's readiness to proceed. This review must be completed before the project will be

authorized to spend more than 25% of the proposed PI-Managed Mission Cost. The results of the 

independent review and the project status will be presented to the SMD Program Management 

Council (PMC) at the Confirmation Review (KDP-C) for Confirmation to enter Phase C. If the 

project is classified Category 1 according to NM 7120-81, the Confirmation results will need 

subsequent approval from the Agency PMC. Following Confirmation, no rephasing between 

fiscal years of Phase E costs to Phase C/D will be permitted.

7.5 Opportunity for Debriefing of Nonselected Proposers

Proposers of investigations that are not selected will be notified in writing and offered oral 

debriefings for themselves and a representative from each of their main partners (if any). Written 

debriefing materials will be provided at the time of the oral debriefing. Such debriefings may be 

in person at NASA Headquarters or by telephone if the proposal PI prefers. In the former case, 

please note that all expenses and arrangements for attending a debriefing are the responsibility of 

the attendee. Travel and associated costs of attendance are not allowable as a direct cost under 

another Federal Government award, i.e., contract, grant, or cooperative agreement. Government 

employees may attend and be authorized travel and associated costs as a matter of official

business.

7.6 Process for Appeals

7.6.1 Agency Procurement Ombudsman

The Agency Procurement Ombudsman, designated in NPD 5101.32, Procurement, will take 

action to resolve concerns, disagreements, and recommendations submitted by interested parties 

that cannot be resolved at the Center level, or those having Agencywide implications, refer 

Center-specific issues to the appropriate Center Procurement Ombudsman for action, and 

periodically communicate with Center Procurement Ombudsmen on common Agencywide 

issues and refer those issues to the appropriate office for action. Under NPD 5101.32, the 

designated Agency Procurement Ombudsman is:

Director of the Contract Management Division

Office of Procurement

NASA Headquarters

Washington, DC 20546

USA
- 62 -

7.6.2 Protests

Only prospective offerors seeking contract awards under this AO have the right to file a protest, 

either at the Government Accountability Office (GAO) or with the Agency, as defined in FAR 

33.101. The provisions at FAR 52.233-2 (―Service of Protest‖) and NFS 1852.233-70 (―Protests 

to NASA‖) are incorporated into this AO. Under both of these provisions, the designated official 

for receipt of protests to the Agency and copies of protests filed with the GAO is:

Assistant Administrator for Procurement

Office of Procurement

NASA Headquarters

Washington, DC 20546

USA

8. Conclusion

The Discovery Program represents a challenging way for NASA to accomplish important 

scientific exploration, as well as to generate opportunities to enhance education and engage the 

public in the excitement of science discoveries. NASA invites both the U.S. and international 

science communities to submit proposals for Discovery investigations in response to this 

Announcement.
A-1

APPENDIX A

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS AND PROVISIONS

NASA FAR Supplement, Part 1872.705-1

I. INSTRUMENTATION AND/OR GROUND EQUIPMENT

By submitting a proposal, the investigator and institution agree that NASA has the option to 

accept all or part of the offeror's plan to provide the instrumentation or ground support

equipment required for the investigation, or NASA may furnish or obtain such instrumentation or 

equipment from any other source as determined by the selecting official. In addition, NASA 

reserves the right to require use of Government instrumentation or property that subsequently 

becomes available, with or without modification, that meets the investigative objectives.

II. TENTATIVE SELECTIONS, PHASED DEVELOPMENT, PARTIAL SELECTIONS, AND 

PARTICIPATION WITH OTHERS

By submitting a proposal, the investigator and the organization agree that NASA has the option 

to make a tentative selection pending a successful feasibility or definition effort. NASA has the 

option to contract in phases for a proposed experiment and to discontinue the investigative effort 

at the completion of any phase. NASA may desire to select only a portion of the proposed 

investigation and/or that the individual participates with other investigators in a joint 

investigation. In this case, the investigator will be given the opportunity to accept or decline such 

partial acceptance or participation with other investigators prior to a NASA selection. Where 

participation with other investigators as a team is agreed to, one of the team members will 

normally be designated as its leader or contact point. NASA reserves the right not to make an 

award or cancel this AO at any time.

III. SELECTION WITHOUT DISCUSSION

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award contracts without discussions with 

offerors. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the offeror's best terms from a cost or price 

and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions, if 

later determined by the Contracting Officer to be necessary.

IV. NONDOMESTIC PROPOSALS

The guidelines for proposals originating outside of the United States are the same as those for 

proposals originating within the United States, except that the additional conditions described in 

AO Section 5.7 shall also apply.

V. TREATMENT OF PROPOSAL DATA

It is NASA policy to use information contained in proposals and quotations for evaluation 

purposes only. While this policy does not require that the proposal or quotation bear a restrictive 

notice, offerors or quoters should, in order to maximize protection of trade secrets or other 
A-2

information that is commercial or financial and confidential or privileged, place the following 

notice on the title page of the proposal or quotation and specify the information, subject to the 

notice by inserting appropriate identification, such as page numbers, in the notice. In any event, 

information (data) contained in proposals and quotations will be protected to the extent permitted 

by law, but NASA assumes no liability for use and disclosure of information not made subject to 

the notice.

RESTRICTION ON USE AND DISCLOSURE OF

PROPOSAL AND QUOTATION INFORMATION (DATA)

The information (data) contained in (insert page numbers or other identification) of this 

proposal or quotation constitutes a trade secret and/or information that is commercial or 

financial and confidential or privileged. It is furnished to the Government in confidence 

with the understanding that it will not, without permission of the offeror, be used or 

disclosed for other than evaluation purposes; provided, however, that in the event a 

contract is awarded on the basis of this proposal or quotation, the Government shall have 

the right to use and disclose this information (data) to the extent provided in the contract. 

This restriction does not limit the Government's right to use or disclose this information 

(data), if obtained from another source without restriction.

VI. STATUS OF COST PROPOSALS

Submission of cost or pricing data, as defined in FAR 15.401, is required if the combined Phase 

A and Bridge Phase costs exceed $650,000. Cost or pricing data will also be required for 

proposals for subsequent mission phases. The investigator's institution agrees that the cost 

proposal submitted in response to the Announcement is for proposal evaluation and selection 

purposes, and that, following selection and during negotiations leading to a definitive contract, 

the institution may be required to resubmit or execute all certifications and representations 

required by law and regulation.

VII. LATE PROPOSALS

The Government reserves the right to consider proposals or modifications thereof received after 

the date indicated for such purpose, if the selecting official deems it to offer NASA a significant 

technical advantage or cost reduction. (See NFS 18-15.208.)

VIII. SOURCE OF SPACE INVESTIGATIONS

Investigators are advised that candidate investigations for space missions can come from many 

sources. These sources include those selected through this AO, those generated by NASA inhouse research and development, and those derived from contracts and other agreements 

between NASA and external entities.
A-3

IX. DISCLOSURE OF PROPOSALS OUTSIDE THE GOVERNMENT

NASA may find it necessary to obtain proposal evaluation assistance outside the Government. 

Where NASA determines it is necessary to disclose a proposal outside the Government for 

evaluation purposes, arrangements will be made with the evaluator for appropriate handling of 

the proposal information. Therefore, by submitting a proposal, the investigator and institution 

agree that NASA may have the proposal evaluated outside the Government. If the investigator or 

institution desires to preclude NASA from using an outside evaluation, the investigator or 

institution should so indicate on the cover. However, notice is given that if NASA is precluded 

from using outside evaluation, it may be unable to consider the proposal.

X. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY

For any NASA contract resulting from this solicitation, the clause at FAR 52.222-26, ―Equal 

Opportunity,‖ shall apply.

XI. PATENT RIGHTS

a. For any NASA contract resulting from this solicitation awarded to other than a small 

business firm or nonprofit organization, the clause at NFS 18-52.227-70, New 

Technology, shall apply. Such contractors may, in advance of a contract, request waiver 

of rights as set forth in the provision at NFS 18-52.227-71, Requests for Waiver of Rights 

to Inventions.

b. For any NASA contract resulting from this solicitation awarded to a small business firm 

or nonprofit organization, the clause at FAR 52.227-11, Patent Rights -- Retention by the 

Contractor (Short Form), (as modified by NFS 18-52.227-11) shall apply.

XII. RIGHTS IN DATA

Any contract resulting from this solicitation will contain the Rights in Data – General clause: 

FAR 52.227-14.

XIII. SMALL AND SMALL DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING

a. Offerors are advised that NASA is subject to statutory goals to allocate a fair portion of 

its contract dollars to SDB concerns, HBCUs, and OMIs, as these entities are defined in 

52.219-8 and 52.226-2 of the FAR. Offerors are encouraged to assist NASA in achieving 

these goals by using best efforts to involve these entities as subcontractors to the fullest 

extent consistent with efficient performance of their investigations.

b. Offerors are advised that, by law, NASA prime contracts resulting from this solicitation 

which offer subcontracting possibilities, exceed $500,000, and are with organizations 

other than small business concerns, the clause at FAR 52.219-9 shall apply. Accordingly, 

offerors awarded contracts for Phase A concept studies that exceed $500,000 are required 

to submit small business subcontracting plans consistent with the FAR, covering the 
A-4

study phase only, unless they adequately demonstrate that subcontracting opportunities 

are not reasonably available in the performance of these concept studies. Failure to do so 

will make the offeror ineligible for award. These plans should be submitted for 

negotiation after selection in conjunction with contract execution.

c. As part of the down selection of investigations, offerors, other than small business 

concerns, are required to submit small business subcontracting plans, covering 

implementation and operation Phases B/C/D/E/F, at the time the Phase A concept study 

reports are delivered. Failure to submit a subcontracting plan will make the offeror 

ineligible for award. As part of the down select decision, these subcontracting plans will 

be evaluated on the participation goals and quality and level of work performed by small 

business concerns overall, as well as that performed by the various categories of small 

business concerns listed in FAR 52.219-9, except for SDBs. Offerors shall separately 

identify and will be evaluated on participation targets of SDBs in North American 

Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes determined by the Department of 

Commerce to be underrepresented industry sectors.

XIV. WITHDRAWAL OF PROPOSALS

Proposals may be withdrawn by the proposer at any time before award. Proposers are requested 

to notify NASA if the proposal is funded by another organization or of other changed 

circumstances that dictate termination of evaluation.
B-1

APPENDIX B

REQUIREMENTS FOR PROPOSAL PREPARATION

INTRODUCTION

The following requirements apply to preparation of proposals in response to this Announcement 

of Opportunity (AO). While the body of the AO specifies the general policies and requirements 

for preparing Step 1 proposals, as well as for implementing missions proposed in response to this 

opportunity, Appendix B contains the specific requirements for the format and content of Step 1 

proposals. In the event of apparent conflicts between this Appendix and the policies and 

requirements specified within the body of the AO, the latter takes precedence.

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

The following expands requirements in the AO, in particular Requirement 96.

Requirement B-1. A proposal shall consist of one volume divided into readily identifiable 

sections that correspond and conform to Sections A through J of this appendix. It shall be 

typewritten in English and shall employ metric (SI) and/or standard astronomical units, as 

applicable. It shall contain all data and other information that will be necessary for scientific and 

technical evaluations; provision by reference to external sources, such as Internet websites, of 

additional material that is required for evaluation of the proposal is prohibited.

Requirement B-2. All parts of a proposal, including photographs and/or colored graphics, shall 

be printed on recyclable white paper. Page size shall be either American standard 8.5 x 11 inches 

or European standard A4. Foldout pages (11 x 17 inches or A3) may also be employed at the 

proposers‘ discretion (see below for assessment of foldout pages against the page limit). 

Cardboard stock and loose-leaf binders are prohibited; plastic covers and spiral bindings are 

acceptable.

Requirement B-3. Text shall not exceed 55 lines per page. Margins at the top, both sides, and 

bottom of each page shall be no less than 1 inch if printed on 8.5 x 11 inch paper; no less than 

2.5 cm at the top and both sides, and 4 cm at the bottom if printed on A4 paper. Single-column or 

double-column formats are acceptable for text pages. Type fonts for text and figure captions 

shall be no smaller than 12-point (i.e., no more than 15 characters per inch; six characters per 

centimeter). There is no minimum requirement for fonts used within figures and tables but all 

text in figures and tables shall be legible; fonts smaller than 8-point are often illegible.
B-2

PROPOSAL STRUCTURE AND PAGE LIMITS

Section Contents Page Limits

A Graphic Cover Page 1

Proposal Summary Information None

Export controlled material statement (Section 5.8.2) 0.5

Optional Restriction on Use statement (see Appendix A, 

Section V)

0.5

B Fact Sheet 2

C Table of Contents None

D Science Investigation 25 + 2 pages / instrument 

E Science Implementation, including optional SEO + 2 pages for SEO **

F Mission Implementation 25 + 2 pages/flight 

element **

(Schedule foldout(s) 

do(es) not count against 

page limit)

Schedule Foldout(s) 

G Management

H Cost and Cost Estimating Methodology 8

Cost Table B3 (Table B3 does not count 

against page limit)

I Small Business Subcontracting Plan 2 + 2 for optional student 

Acknowledgement of E/PO requirements collaboration

Optional Student Collaboration plan

J Appendices (no others permitted):

J.1 Table of Proposal Participants None

J.2 Letters of Commitment None

J.3 Resumes None

J.4 Summary of Proposed Program Cooperative 

Contributions

None

J.5 Draft International Participation Plan

Discussion on Compliance with U.S. Export Laws and 

Regulations

None

J.6A Planetary Protection Plan None

J.6B Sample and Space-Exposed Hardware Curation Plan None

J.7 Discussion of End-of-Mission Spacecraft Disposal 

Requirements

None

J.8 Compliance with Procurement Regulations by NASA PI 

Proposals

None

J.9 Master Equipment List (MEL) None

J.10 Heritage None

J.11 List of Abbreviations and Acronyms None

J.12 List of References (optional) None

J.13 NASA-Developed Technology Infusion Plan 5

J.14 Description of Enabling Nature of ASRG (if ASRG use 

is proposed)

3

** Total extra pages limited to 10 as described in Requirement B-4; extra pages may be 

distributed between Sections D-G as desired.
B-3

Requirement B-4. Proposals shall conform to the page limits specified in the Proposal 

Structure and Page Limits table. Two extra pages each may be allotted for each separate science

instrument in the Science Section (Sections D and E), two extra pages each may allotted for each 

separate flight element (e.g., cruise element, landed element, sample return element, additional 

spacecraft) in the Mission Implementation and Management Sections (Sections F and G), and 

two extra pages are allotted for all science enhancement options (SEOs) combined, if they are 

permitted by the AO, in the Science Implementation Section (Section E). The total number of 

such extra pages in the Science and Mission Implementation sections combined shall not exceed 

a maximum of ten extra pages regardless of the number of science instruments and flight 

elements. Every side of a page upon which printing appears will count against the page limits 

and, unless specifically exempted (e.g., Requirement B-40 and Requirement B-49), each foldout 

page will count as two pages against the page limits as appropriate for its area (e.g., a fold-out 

with the total area of two standard pages counts as two pages, etc.).

Requirement B-5. One copy of every proposal shall bear on its cover sheet the original 

signatures of the Principal Investigator and an official of the PI‘s institution who is authorized to 

commit its resources (see Section A of this appendix). This ―original‖ copy shall be printed on a 

single side of each page, and it shall be bound in a manner (e.g., with a binder clip, with a rubber 

band, in an accordion folder, etc.) that allows it to be disassembled easily for reproduction in the 

event that NASA needs additional copies. The number of printed ―review‖ copies specified in 

Section 6.2.3 of this AO shall be submitted with the original copy; two-sided printing is required 

for the review copies.

Requirement B-6. A CD-ROM containing up to three searchable PDF files of the proposal, 

limited to the main proposal, all tables, and all applicable appendices (see Section J of this 

appendix), as well as EXCEL files of tables (see Requirement B-50 and Requirement B-69) shall 

be attached to the original and to each review copy.

A. GRAPHIC COVER PAGE AND PROPOSAL SUMMARY INFORMATION

A.1 HARDCOPY PROPOSAL

The following expands requirements in the AO, in particular Requirement 96.

Requirement B-7. A Graphic Cover Page and Proposal Summary Information, prepared as 

directed below, shall preface every proposal. The Proposal Summary Information will not be 

counted against the page limits.

Requirement B-8. The Graphic Cover Page shall contain, at a minimum, the following 

information and elements displayed on the cover page of the proposal:

The proposal title;

The name of the proposing organization;

The name of the PI;

The name and title of an official who is authorized to commit the proposing organization 

through the submission of the proposal;
B-4

The signature of the PI and the authorizing official (unless these signatures appear on the 

Proposal Summary Information), and

A 0.5 inch (13 mm) high by 2 inch (51 mm) long space in the upper right corner of the page 

for NASA to place the proposal number and the copy number.

Optionally, the Graphic Cover Page may also contain:

Any illustrations or graphic elements of the proposer‘s choice (or none); and

Any additional information of the proposer‘s choice that is nonproprietary and that does not 

provide additional content beyond what is in the proposal (or none).

[Amended July 13, 2010. New text is bold. Deleted text is struck through.]

Requirement B-9. The Proposal Summary Information shall include the following information 

and only the following information. This information shall be identical to the information entered 

into the Electronic Cover Page in NSPIRES (see Requirement B-10). Including a printed copy of 

the completed NSPIRES Electronic Cover Page in the proposal will satisfy this requirement. 

These pages will not be counted against the page limits.

The signature of the PI and the authorizing official (unless these signatures appear on the 

Graphic Cover Page);

Section I:

o The Principal Investigator‘s (PI‘s) full name, E-mail address, phone number, and mailing 

address;

o The proposal‘s full title, proposed start date, and proposed end date (if the proposed end 

date is later than December 31, 2020, please enter an end date that is one day after your 

start date to indicate that the true end date is within the body of your proposal.);

Section II:

o The date submitted;

Section III:

o The legal name of the proposing organization;

o The common name (―doing business as‖ name) of the proposing organization;

o The Division/Department/Center of the proposing organization;

o The mailing address of the proposing organization;

Section IV:

o The proposal point-of-contact‘s (POC‘s) name, E-mail address, and telephone number 

(proposal POC may be the PI);

Section V:

o The following text, verbatim:

Certification of Compliance with Applicable Executive Orders and U.S. Code

By submitting the proposal identified in the Cover Sheet/Proposal Summary

Information in response to this Research Announcement, the Authorizing Official of 

the proposing organization (or the individual proposer if there is no proposing 

organization) as identified below:

• certifies that the statements made in this proposal are true and complete to the best 

of his/her knowledge;

• agrees to accept the obligations to comply with NASA award terms and conditions 

if an award is made as a result of this proposal; and
B-5

• confirms compliance with all provisions, rules, and stipulations set forth in the two

Certifications and one Assurance contained in this NRA (namely, (i) the Assurance of 

Compliance with the NASA Regulations Pursuant to Nondiscrimination in Federally 

Assisted Programs, and (ii) Certifications, Disclosures, and Assurances Regarding 

Lobbying and Debarment and Suspension).

Willful provision of false information in this proposal and/or its supporting 

documents, or in reports required under an ensuing award, is a criminal offense (U.S. 

Code, Title 18, Section 1001).

o The name, E-mail address, and phone number of the authorized official who signed the 

proposal‘s cover page;

Section VI:

o For every proposal team member, their name; E-mail address; phone number; 

organization name; indication if participation is from an international organization or a 

U.S. Government agency; if yes to the latter, a statement of total funds requested by that 

U.S. agency; and team member role (exactly one role per team member) chosen from the 

following list (note that these are the only roles permitted by NSPIRES; other named key 

personnel, such as project scientist or project systems engineer, should use the most 

appropriate role from this list):

List of Team Member Roles

Principal Investigator

Co-investigator

Co-I/Institutional PI

Collaborator

Project Manager

Industry Partner

International Partner

Other Professional

Postdoctoral Associate

Graduate/Undergraduate Student

Section VII:

o Proposal summary (not to exceed 300 words); NASA intends to enter the summaries of 

all investigation proposals selected for its various programs into a publicly accessible 

database; proposal summaries shall not contain proprietary or confidential information 

that the submitters wish to protect from public disclosure;

Section VIII:

o Answers to the following questions:

o Is proprietary/privileged information included in this application? – Answer Yes or 

No;

o Does this project involve activities outside the U.S. or partnership with non-U.S. 

collaborators? – Answer Yes or No for the following types of foreign participation 

and include an explanation if ―Yes‖ : Principal Investigator, Co-Investigator, 

Collaborator, Equipment, Facilities;

o Are NASA civil servant personnel participating as team members on this project 

(include funded and unfunded)? – Answer Yes or No;
B-6

o Does this project have an actual or potential impact on the environment? – Answer 

Yes or No and include an explanation if ―Yes‖;

o Has an exemption been authorized on an environmental assessment (EA) or an 

environmental impact statement (EIS) been performed? Answer Yes or No and 

include an explanation if ―Yes‖;

o Does this project have the potential to affect historic, archeological, or traditional 

cultural sites (such as Native American burial or ceremonial grounds) or historic 

objects (such as an historic aircraft or spacecraft)? – Answer Yes or No and include 

an explanation if ―Yes‖;

Section IX:

o Short title of proposal (the mission‘s acronym or short nickname);

o Type of institution;

o List all science team members, key institutional representatives, and other science 

participants in this investigation, both requesting funding and not requesting funding, 

who do not appear in Section VI or on the proposal's electronic cover page as a proposal 

team member. Include name, institution, city, state or country, and a description of the 

role in five words or less (e.g., data analyst, facility provider, support technician). (N.b., 

this is requested to aid NASA in avoiding conflicts of interest for proposal reviewers.)

o Identification of target of investigation;

o Which launch vehicle performance class is proposed? — Answer ―Standard with 4m 

fairing‖, ―Standard with 5m fairing‖, ―Medium with 4m fairing‖, ―Medium with 5m 

fairing‖, ―High with 4m fairing‖, or ―High with 5m fairing‖;

o Is the use of NEXT proposed? — Answer Yes or No;

o Is the use of AMBR proposed? — Answer Yes or No;

o Is the use of aerocapture proposed? — Answer ―Yes (lander)‖, ―Yes (orbiter)‖ or ―No‖;

o Is the use of ASRG proposed? — Answer ―Yes (1 ASRG)‖, ―Yes (2 ASRGs)‖ or ―No‖;

o If the use of ASRG is proposed:

- Could the mission involve more than two Earth swingbys? — Answer 

Yes, No, Possibly. [If the mission could not have at least one Earth swingby, 

please skip the next 3 questions.]

- Could any of the mission’s Earth swingbys be at an altitude lower than 

300km? — Answer Yes, No, Possibly

- Could the highest velocity (relative to Earth) of any Earth swingby 

maneuver exceed ~16 km/sec? — Answer Yes, No, Possibly

- Could the mission’s last planned trajectory change maneuver (TCM) 

prior to any Earth swingby occur less than 5 days prior to the swingby? 

— Answer Yes, No, Possibly

- Could the nominal mission involve planned residence times in low Earth 

orbit exceeding two hours? — Answer Yes, No, Possibly.

- Would the primary planned application for the RPS and, if applicable, 

any RHUs involve anything other than Spacecraft power and/or heating? 

— Answer Yes, No, Possibly.

- Could the mission have payload liquid propellants (fuel plus oxidizer) in 

excess of 3,000 kg? — Answer Yes, No, Possibly

- Could the mission have payload solid propellants in excess of 2,000 kg? —

Answer Yes, No, Possibly.
B-7

- Could the mission have a payload pressurant tank exceeding a stored 

energy (nominal operating pressure x internal volume) of 1.2 x 105 Nm? 

— Answer Yes, No, Possibly

- Could the mission involve returning the ASRG to the Earth-Moon 

system? — Answer Yes, No, Possibly.

o Is use of radioisotope heater units, or radioactive material sources for science instruments 

proposed? – Answer Yes or No and include an explanation if ―Yes‖.

o If the use of radioisotope heater units, or radioactive material sources for science 

instruments, is proposed, could the mission involve returning them to the EarthMoon system? — Answer Yes, No, Possibly.

o Is a student collaboration (SC) proposed? — Answer Yes or No;

o Is a science enhancement option (SEO) proposed? — Answer Yes or No;

o Statement of contributions to development or operations (but not science) by any nonU.S. partner. Identify the non-U.S. partner(s), the non-U.S. funding agency/agencies, and 

the approximate value of the non-U.S. contributions, if any;

o PI-Managed Mission Cost in real year dollars (RY$) and in FY 2010 dollars from 

Table B3;

o Total Mission Cost in real year dollars (RY$) and in FY 2010 dollars from Table B3;

o Provide NASA Personnel FTE Information; enter FTE totals by budget year in the 

following format: Year 1, FTE Total for Year 1, Year 2, FTE Total for Year 2, Year 3, 

FTE Total for Year 3, etc. (Example: FY07, 3.2, FY08 2.40, FY09, 1.3)

o Answers to the following questions:

i. This proposal contains information and/or data that are subject to U.S. export control 

laws and regulations, including Export Administration Regulations (EAR) and 

International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). – Answer Yes or No;

ii. The export-controlled material (EAR and/or ITAR) has been identified in this 

proposal. – Answer Yes or No or N/A;

iii. The proposer acknowledges that the inclusion of such material in this proposal may 

complicate the Government's ability to evaluate the proposal. – Answer Yes or No or 

N/A;

A.2 ELECTRONIC COVER PAGE (NSPIRES Submission)

The following expands requirements in the AO, in particular Requirement 99 and Requirement 

100

Electronic submission must be through the NASA Solicitation and Proposal Integrated Review 

and Evaluation System (NSPIRES) at http://nspires.nasaprs.com/.

Requirement B-10. This AO requires that proposal summary information, referred to as the 

Electronic Cover Page, shall be submitted electronically. The forms for the Electronic Cover 

Page are found in NSPIRES at http://nspires.nasaprs.com/. The Electronic Cover Page shall be 

completed and submitted online. The electronic submission of the Electronic Cover Page alone 

does not satisfy the deadline for proposal submission. Electronic submission of the Electronic 

Cover Page in NSPIRES need not be completed until after the proposal is finalized, but must be 

completed before the proposal submittal deadline specified in Section 3 of this AO.
B-8

Requirement B-11. The same proposal summary information shall be submitted on the 

Electronic Cover Page as is in Section A of the proposal. In particular, the list of proposal team 

members and the proposed costs must be identical.

Note that proposers have several options for meeting Requirement B-10 and Requirement B-11: 

(i) proposers may first finalize, copy, and submit the hardcopy proposal, including the Proposal 

Summary Information, and then complete and submit the Electronic Cover Page in NSPIRES; 

(ii) proposers may first complete and submit the Electronic Cover Page in NSPIRES and then 

print it out for inclusion in the hardcopy proposal; or (iii) any other order for completing and 

submitting both the Proposal Summary Information in the hardcopy proposal and the Electronic 

Cover Page via NSPIRES. Both Requirement B-10 and Requirement B-11 require that the 

Proposal Summary Information and the Electronic Cover Page contain identical data and that 

both are received by NASA prior to the proposal deadline no matter what order they are 

completed and submitted.

A.3 PROPOSAL TEAM MEMBER COMMITMENT THROUGH NSPIRES

The following expands requirements in the AO, in particular Requirement 98.

Every proposal team member (i.e., every individual identified on the NSPIRES proposal cover 

page) must indicate his/her commitment to the proposed investigation through NSPIRES prior to 

proposal cover page submission. Team members must additionally confirm the organization 

through which they are participating on this proposal; identification of the organization serves as 

the commitment to the team specified in Requirement 98.

A proposal team member will receive an E-mail from NSPIRES indicating that he/she has been 

added to the proposal by the PI. The proposal team member should log in to NSPIRES. Once 

logged in, the proposal team member should follow the link in the ―Reminders and 

Notifications‖ section of his/her NSPIRES home page, titled ―Need <role> confirmation for 

proposal <title> for Solicitation <<solicitation number>>.‖ On the ―Team Member Participation

Confirmation‖ page, the proposal team member should read language about the Organizational 

Relationship, then click the ―Continue‖ button.

If the contact information then displayed on the ―Team Member Profile‖ screen is out of date, 

the proposal team member should update this information later using the ―Account Mgmt‖ link 

in the NSPIRES navigation bar across the top. Prior to making that update, however, the team 

member should follow the on-screen prompts to identify the organization through which he/she 

is participating on this proposal. Click the ―Link Relationship‖ button to the right side of the 

―Organizational Relationship‖ banner. Select the organization from the ―Link Proposal to an 

Association‖ part of the page. If the correct organization is not displayed here, try using the ―Add 

Association‖ button to add the organization to this list. Then click the ―Save‖ button at the 

bottom of the page. If the team member cannot find the organization when searching in the ―Add 

Association‖ area (i.e., the organization is not registered), type in the formal name in the space 

provided (or select ―Self‖ if appropriate). Once the organization is selected and the ―Save‖ 
B-9

button is clicked, there is a confirmation page that allows the team member to edit that 

relationship if it was chosen incorrectly. Click ―Continue‖.

Note that the organization through which the proposal team member is participating in the 

proposal might not be the proposal team member‘s primary employer or primary mailing 

address. If the address information is accurate (or once it has been edited to be accurate), the 

proposal team member may log out of NSPIRES.

NSPIRES will send an email to both the team member and the PI confirming that the 

commitment was made and the organization was identified. The PI may additionally monitor the 

status of proposal team member commitments by examining the ―Relationship Confirmed‖ 

column on the Team Member page of the NSPIRES proposal cover page record. Note that the 

proposal cover page cannot be submitted until all identified team members have confirmed their 

participating organization.

Requirement B-12. Every proposal team member named on the proposal cover page shall 

personally commit to the proposed investigation through NSPIRES and identify the organization 

through which he/she is participating. The PI and every proposal team member shall ensure that 

the organization listed on the proposal cover page is the organization through which the proposal 

team member is participating in the proposal.

B. FACT SHEET

The following expands requirements in the AO, in particular Requirement 96.

Requirement B-13. Every proposal shall include a fact sheet that provides a brief summary of 

the proposed investigation. Information conveyed on this fact sheet shall include:

Science objectives (including the importance of the science to the program science goals);

Mission overview;

Instrument complement;

Key spacecraft characteristics;

Mission management and participating organizations (including teaming arrangements, as 

known);

Anticipated need for curatorial services for returned samples, as applicable;

Schedule summary;

The proposed PI-Managed Mission Cost in real year dollars (RY$) and in FY 2010 dollars

from Table B3; and

The proposed Total Cost, including a breakdown of any contributed costs by contributing 

organization, in real year dollars (RY$) and in FY 2010 dollars from Table B3.

C. TABLE OF CONTENTS

The following expands requirements in the AO, in particular Requirement 96.

Requirement B-14. Every proposal shall contain a table of contents that conforms to the outlines 

provided in Sections D through J of this appendix, below.
B-10

D. SCIENCE INVESTIGATION

The following expands requirements in the AO, in particular Requirement 4 through 

Requirement 21.

1. Scientific Background, Goals, and Objectives.

Requirement B-15. This section shall describe the goals and objectives of the investigation, the 

compelling nature of the investigation, the investigation‘s value to advancing NASA‘s science 

objectives, and the relationship of the proposed investigation to past, current, and future 

investigations and missions.

2. Science Requirements.

Requirement B-16. This section shall describe the investigation to be performed, the types of 

measurements to be taken; the characteristics, precision, and accuracy required to attain the 

scientific objectives; and the projected instrument performance. This section shall describe the 

data to be returned in the course of the investigation. The quality (e.g., resolution, coverage, 

pointing accuracy, measurement precision, etc.) and quantity (bits, images, etc.) of data that must 

be returned shall be described. The relationship between the proposed data products (e.g., flight 

data, ancillary or calibration data, theoretical calculations, higher order analytical or data 

products, sample returns, witness samples, laboratory data, etc.) and the scientific objectives, as 

well as the expected results, shall be described. How the science products and data obtained will 

be used to fulfill the scientific requirements shall be demonstrated and supported by quantitative 

analysis. These descriptions shall constitute the Baseline Science Mission.

Requirement B-17. Traceability from science objectives to measurement requirements to 

instrument performance requirements, and to top-level mission requirements shall be provided in 

tabular form and supported by narrative discussion. Projected instrument performance shall be 

compared to instrument performance requirements.

Table B1 of this appendix provides an example of a tabular Science Traceability Matrix, with 

examples of matrix elements. This matrix provides the reference points and tools needed to track 

overall mission requirements, provide systems engineers with fundamental requirements needed 

to design the mission, show clearly the effects of any descoping or losses of elements, and 

facilitate identification of any resulting degradation to the science.

3. Threshold Science Mission.

Requirement B-18. This section shall identify the minimum acceptable data and scientific return 

for the mission (the Threshold Science Mission), below which the mission would not be worth 

pursuing. The Threshold Science Mission is identified with the ―Threshold Science 

Requirements‖ in NM 7120-81. The scientific value of the Threshold Science Mission shall be 

discussed. NASA recognizes that, in some circumstances, the Threshold Science Mission may be 
B-11

identical to the Baseline Science Mission. In such cases, the proposer shall explain why there is 

no viable mission below the Baseline Science Mission.

E. SCIENCE IMPLEMENTATION

The following expands requirements in the AO, in particular Requirement 5 through 

Requirement 21 and Requirement 48 through Requirement 51.

1. Instrumentation.

Requirement B-19. This section shall describe the instrumentation and the rationale for its 

selection. It shall identify the individual instruments and instrument systems, including their 

characteristics and requirements, and indicate items that are proposed for development, as well 

as any existing instrumentation or design/flight heritage. It shall provide a clear understanding of 

how the concept will provide the required data, show how it can be accommodated by the 

spacecraft, demonstrate that instruments have the necessary unobstructed fields-of-view over the 

measurement period required, describe the technology readiness levels and the approach to bring 

systems to technology readiness level (TRL) 6 at preliminary design review (PDR). If no 

development plan is needed, the reasons for this shall be explicitly stated and the rationale shall 

be described. A preliminary description of each instrument design, with a block diagram 

showing the instrument systems and their interfaces, along with a description of the estimated 

performance of the instrument, shall be included. These performance characteristics (which shall 

be considered as requirements on the flight system) shall include mass, power, volume, data 

rate(s), thermal, pointing (such as control, stability, jitter, drift, accuracy, etc.), spatial and 

spectral resolution, observable precision, retrieved parameter sensitivity and accuracy, and 

calibration requirements. This section shall demonstrate that the instrumentation can meet the 

measurement requirements, including factors such as retrieval results for each remote sensor, 

error analysis of the information in all sensors, vertical and horizontal resolution, signal-to-noise 

(S/N) calculations, etc. It shall also discuss effects, such as radiation and contamination, on each 

instrument‘s measurement capabilities as a function of mission time.

Requirement B-20. The following information shall be provided for each science instrument 

proposed:

Mass (include breakouts of electronics and optics);

Viewing direction in body coordinates;

Pointing accuracy and stability requirements;

Operational modes;

Operational mode timeline;

Data demand for each instrument operational mode;

Onboard data processing and storage required from spacecraft;

Power demand for each instrument operational mode including peak, average, and standby power; and

Instrument thermal control capability.
B-12

2. Data Sufficiency.

Requirement B-21. This section shall discuss the quality and quantity of data to be generated by 

each instrument and a detailed data collection strategy in support of the proposed science 

investigation goals and objectives. The flow-down from science investigation goals to 

measurement objectives and instrument performance shall be stated clearly and supported by 

quantitative analysis. Potential data processing complexities shall be acknowledged and 

described, including discussion of addressing such issues during mission operations and/or 

afterwards.

3. Science Mission Profile.

Requirement B-22. This section shall discuss the science observing profile, including all 

mission-relevant parameters, such as orbit, navigation accuracy, operational time lines (including 

observing periods, data transmission periods and techniques, and time-critical events), etc. The 

manner in which the proposed investigation objectives, selected instruments, and measurement 

requirements drive the proposed mission design and operations plan should be apparent from this 

discussion.

4. Data Plan.

Requirement B-23. A schedule-based end-to-end data management plan, including approaches 

for data retrieval, validation, preliminary analysis, and archiving, shall be described. The science 

products (e.g., flight data, ancillary or calibration data, theoretical calculations, higher order 

analytical or data products, sample returns, witness samples, laboratory data, etc.) shall be 

identified, including a list of the specific data products and the individual team members 

responsible for the data products as well as sufficient demonstration that software and/or 

hardware technologies required to work with the data sets (and create the proposed science 

products) are either available or will be developed as part of the mission. The plan shall identify 

the appropriate NASA data archive and the formats and standards to be used. It shall include an 

estimate of the raw data volume and a schedule for the submission to the data archive of raw and 

reduced data in physical units accessible to the science community. 

5. Science Team.

Requirement B-24. This section shall identify each key member (i.e., one whose participation is 

essential to the success of the investigation) of the science team and his/her role and 

responsibilities. Resumes or curriculum vitae of science team members shall be included as 

appendices to the proposal (see Section J.3 of this appendix). The role of each co-investigator 

(Co-I) shall be explicitly defined, the necessity of that role shall be justified, and the funding 

source (NASA or contributed) for the PI and each Co-I shall be noted. Non-funded members of 

the science team shall be identified in the proposal as collaborators (see Section 5.4 of this AO). 

The role of collaborators may be defined and justified.
B-13

6. Plan for Science Enhancement Options (SEO).

Requirement B-25. If an SEO is proposed, this section shall define and describe the proposed 

activities (see Section 5.1.6 of this AO).

F. MISSION IMPLEMENTATION

The following expands requirements in the AO, in particular AO Requirement 21 through 

Requirement 27.

1. General Requirements and Mission Traceability.

Requirement B-26. This section shall provide a description of the spaceflight mission that is 

proposed to enable the science investigation.

In some areas (e.g., instruments), the data requested may have already been presented in another 

section of the proposal (e.g., the Science Implementation section). In such a case, a proposal may 

provide a reference to that section and need not repeat the data in this section.

Requirement B-27. The mission requirements that the science goals and objectives impose on 

the mission design elements, including mission design, instrument accommodation, spacecraft 

design, required launch vehicle capability, ground systems, communications approach, and 

mission operations plan, shall be provided in tabular form and supported by narrative discussion.

Table B2 provides an example of a tabular Mission Traceability Matrix, with examples of matrix 

elements. Specific information that describes how the science investigation imposes unique 

requirements on these mission design elements shall be included.

This matrix, along with Table B1, provides the reference points and tools needed to track overall 

mission requirements, provides systems engineers with fundamental requirements needed to 

design the mission, shows clearly the effects of any descoping or losses of mission elements, and 

facilitates identification of any resulting degradation to the science.

Requirement B-28. NASA recognizes that the full depth of information requested in 

Requirement B-29 through Requirement B-40 may not be available for some aspects of mission 

implementation at this stage of mission design. In such cases, this section shall (i) describe the 

current design concept, (ii) explain why the design information is not complete, (iii) provide a 

time-based plan for completing the design, (iv) justify that the development of that aspect of the 

design is not required at this stage and that it is acceptable to develop details later, and 

(v) explain why the lack of information at this stage does not translate into a risk to the 

proposer's ability to implement the mission as proposed. The approach for developing the 

required depth of information, along with a corresponding development schedule, shall be 

included among the plans for future activity. In cases where a mission is proposed at or near the 

cost cap, but depth of technical implementation detail is deferred, the proposal shall justify the 

adequacy of the proposed cost reserves to prevent increases beyond the cost cap during Phase A 

and subsequent phases.
B-14

This requirement is levied to establish NASA‘s standard for completeness of information 

necessary to support a comprehensive assessment of implementation feasibility and risk. The 

quality of the proposal‘s response to this requirement contributes significantly to the quality of 

the TMC assessment. However, NASA recognizes the preliminary nature of Step 1 proposals, 

and thus Requirement B-28 will apply to all cases where the required information cannot, for 

whatever reason, be provided.

2. Mission Concept Descriptions.

Requirement B-29. Designs for all elements of the mission shall be described in sufficient detail 

to demonstrate that the proposed concept meets all of the basic requirements for a space flight 

mission, including mission design, spacecraft design, and supporting ground systems. Discussion 

of how the various mission elements meet the Mission Requirements shall be included. At a 

minimum, the following mission elements shall be addressed: mission design, flight system 

capabilities, mission operations, and any additional elements.

Requirement B-30. Mission Design: This section shall address the following elements of 

mission design to the extent that they are applicable to the proposed mission and that they are 

known at the time of proposal submission. Any additional elements that are applicable to 

explaining the mission and demonstrating its feasibility shall also be addressed.

Launch readiness date (including launch date flexibility);

Mission duration;

Orbit type (Earth orbit, heliocentric, etc.) and orbit information (semimajor axis, eccentricity, 

inclination, node time of day, argument of perigee, altitude), and/or trajectory design, as 

applicable to the proposed investigation;

Critical events; and

Ground station(s) usage (e.g. location(s), and transmitting and receiving communication 

parameters).

[Amended August 16, 2010. New text is in bold.]

Requirement B-30A. Additionally, the following information shall be provided. 

Recognizing the late date of this additional requirement, this additional data may be 

provided in a file or files on the CD containing the electronic version of the proposal. There 

is no requirement that this data also be included in the hardcopy proposal.

Checkout Duration: The minimum duration allocated after launch before the primary 

propulsion system will be commanded to provide required ΔV.

Initial Mass Assumptions: Provide the initial mass used for generation of the 

trajectories including propellant loading assumptions.

Event Basics: Provide the date/time of each trajectory event with a brief event 

description (e.g., Launch, Gravity Assist, Fly-by, Rendezvous, Mid-Course Burn) and 

the appropriate data for the event (e.g., flyby altitude, flyby angle, flyby/intercept 

velocity, delta-v magnitude). These data should be included for three different scenarios 

corresponding to the Open, Middle, and Closing time of the proposed launch window.
B-15

Event Body Ephemeris: Provide ephemeris data for all event bodies (fly-by planet, 

asteroid fly-by, comet rendezvous, etc.). Include the source of the ephemeris data and 

the epoch for the actual ephemeris point used for a particular event.

For investigations using solar-electric propulsion, the following information should also be 

included:

Power model for performance based on solar distance: Provide the functional 

relationship showing the performance of the solar arrays as a function of the 

spacecraft’s distance from the Sun.

EP Throttling Model: Provide the throttling model used to generate EP engine 

performance at any point during the trajectory and a brief explanation of the approach.

Assumed Engine Duty Cycle: Provide the overall Duty Cycle for the EP engines and if 

applicable provide the duty cycle over each trajectory segment.

Number of Engines: Provide the maximum number of engines on the spacecraft that 

could be operating simultaneously. In addition, provide the number of engines 

operating throughout each phase of the trajectory.

Any other trajectory specific information not called out above that would be relevant to 

reviewers attempting to validate the trajectory should also be included.

Requirement B-31. Launch Vehicle Compatibility: Compatibility with the proposed launch 

vehicle shall be demonstrated by providing in the appropriate proposal section the launch site, 

launch loads and margin, fairing size, packaged payload dimensions, spacecraft mass, and 

mission orbit characteristics such as altitude (km – circular or apogee/perigee), inclination, C3.

Describe any known nonstandard requirements such as additional fairing doors, cleanliness and 

purge requirements, planetary protection, etc.

Requirement B-32. Flight System Capabilities: This section shall address the following flight 

system capabilities to the extent that they are applicable to the proposed mission and that they are 

known at the time of proposal submission. Any additional elements that are applicable to 

explaining the mission and demonstrating its feasibility shall also be addressed.

Spacecraft Parameters:

(a) Figure of the complete spacecraft/instrument system, on the launch vehicle and 

inflight, with major components labeled and approximate overall dimensions.

(b) Block diagram of the spacecraft subsystems and their components.

Subsystem descriptions including structure, telecommunications, thermal, power, propulsion 

(if required), attitude determination and control, command and data handling, in-flight fault 

management, flight software, and ground software. (Note that the discussion of the 

telecommunications subsystem should be limited to specifications, design, and proposed 

component hardware – discussion of the link performance is addressed as part of the mission 

operations approach). Subsystem detail shall include to the extent possible the following 

information:

(a) Propulsion including (i) Delta-V budget; (ii) for each propulsion mode propulsion type(s) 

(monoprop, bi-prop, dual-mode, solar electric, etc.), engines and thrust levels, and

specific impulse; (iii) propellant allocation (impulse vs. attitude control system); and (iv) 

propellant margin including nominal (to meet Delta-V requirement) and additional (to 

meet mass growth).
B-16

(b) Command and Data Handling including (i) spacecraft housekeeping data rates for 

nominal and safing strategy; (ii) data storage unit size (Mbits); and (iii) maximum storage 

record and playback rate.

(c) Power

Deep Space, including Heliocentric Orbit, Missions (non-ASRG):

(i) identify type of array structure (rigid, flexible, body mounted); (ii) solar array 

axes of rotation (vector projected in spacecraft coordinates); (iii) array size; (iv) 

solar cell type and efficiency; (v) expected power generation at Beginning of Life 

and End of Life; (vi) worst case Sun incidence angle to solar panels during 

science mission; (vii) battery type and storage capacity; (viii) worst case battery 

Depth of Discharge (DOD); and (ix) spacecraft bus voltage.

Deep Space, including Heliocentric Orbit, Missions (ASRG):

(i) number of ASRGs; (ii) power bus interface (i.e. battery dominated vs.

capacitance) and characteristics (of battery or capacitors); (iii) expected power 

requirement for each mission phase; and (iv) minimum power capability needed 

to meet all requirements.

Earth and Lunar Orbiter Missions, and Earth-Sun L1/L2:

(i) expected power requirement for each mission phase; (ii) minimum power 

capability needed to meet all requirements; and (iii) associated battery Depth of 

Discharge (DOD).

(d) Attitude Determination and Control, including system pointing requirements and 

capabilities. Describe or define the following: (i) each spacecraft operational mode,

including the sensors and actuators used, control method, and safing and/or contingency 

modes; (ii) attitude determination methodology and estimate of accuracy including 

identifying whether ground postprocessing is required to meet science needs; (iii) agility 

requirements for slews or scanning; (iv) appendage pointing requirements, including 

articulation control methods and deployment accommodations; (v) sensor selection and 

performance, including identifying mounting location and field-of-view (FOV); (vi) 

actuator selection and sizing, including identifying mounting location(s); (vii) 

translational maneuver (Delta-V) control and accuracy; (viii) momentum management 

approach and mitigation of impacts on navigation accuracy, if applicable; (ix) on-orbit 

calibrations, if required, including expected accuracy; and (x) attitude control 

requirements for the spacecraft pointing control, pointing knowledge (at the instrument 

interface), pointing stability, or jitter.

(e) Thermal control, including (i) temperature requirements, (ii) temperature control 

approach (i.e. passive vs. active), and (iii) special thermal design considerations (e.g.,

cryogenic instrument requirements, ASRG use).

Requirement B-33. Additional Mission Elements: This section shall address any other major 

mission elements (i.e., lander, upper-stage, etc.) to the extent that they are applicable to the 

proposed mission and to the extent that they are known at the time of proposal submission. Any 

additional elements that are applicable to explaining the mission and demonstrating its feasibility 

shall also be discussed.

Provide a block diagram and description of relevant subsystems; and

Demonstrate that the proposed design can accomplish the mission within the allocated 

resources.
B-17

Requirement B-34. Flight System Contingencies and Margins: This section shall summarize 

contingencies and margins of all key flight systems resources. For the driving mission element 

requirements derived from the Mission Requirements, it should provide estimates of 

implementation performance and design margins with respect to the required performance. At a 

minimum, it shall include the following:

Mass;

Propellants;

Power;

Data Storage; and

Attitude Control System.

For any other driving mission element requirements derived from the Mission Requirements, 

provide estimates of implementation performance and design margins with respect to the 

required performance.

Definitions:

Contingency, when added to the current estimate for 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 capability of a resource (the 

physical limit or the agreed-to limit) and the maximum expected value for a 

resource. Percent margin for a resource is the available margin divided by its 

maximum expected value.

Example: A payload in the design phase has a maximum expected mass of 115 kg 

including a mass contingency of 15 kg. There is no other payload on the ELV and 

the ELV provider plans to allot the payload the full capability of the vehicle, if 

needed. The ELV capability is 200 kg. The mass contingency is 15/100 = 15% and 

the mass margin is 85 kg or 85/115 = 74%.

Example: The end-of-life (EOL) capability of a spacecraft power system is 200 Watts, 

of which 75 Watts has be allocated to the instrument and 100 Watts has been 

allocated to the spacecraft bus. The power margin is the unallocated 25 Watts or 

25/175 = 14.3%. The current best estimate for the instrument power is 60 Watts, 

leaving 15 Watts or 15/60 = 25% contingency to the 75 Watt maximum expected 

value.
B-18

Acknowledging that the maximum expected resource value is equal to the 

maximum proposed resource value (including contingency), the above technical 

terms can be expressed in equation form as:

Contingency = Max Expected Resource Value – current estimate of Resource 

Value

% Contingency = Contingency X 100

Max Expected Resource Value – Contingency

Margin = Max Possible Resource Value – Max Expected Resource Value

% Margin = Margin X 100

Max Expected Resource Value

Requirement B-35. Mission Operations: This section shall address, at a minimum, the 

following elements of mission operations to the extent that they are applicable to the proposed 

mission and that they are known at the time of proposal submission. Any additional elements that 

are applicable to explaining the mission operations and demonstrating their feasibility shall also 

be addressed. This section shall provide, at a minimum, the following items:

Description of ground systems and facilities including supporting ground software required 

for development and testing;

Telecommunications, Tracking, and Navigation (Deep-Space/Lunar and Earth Orbital 

missions, as well as missions that utilize telecom relay orbiters) including (i) downlink 

information data volume, (ii) uplink information data volume, (iii) for all transmit and 

receive modes, provide mode timeline, data rate(s), and durations, and (iv) ground network 

utilization plan including ground stations, downlink parameters (frequencies, periods, 

capacities, margins, etc.) and retransmission capability;

Description of approach for acquiring and returning critical event data, including clear 

identification of procurement and costing for supplemental resources (e.g., mobile ground 

stations) if such are needed; and

A high-level discussion of operations plan, including nominal sequence planning and 

commanding, team training, availability of spacecraft experts for operations, operations 

center development.

3. Development Approach.

Requirement B-36. This section shall describe the development approach. This description shall 

include, at a minimum, the following items:

Systems engineering approach (e.g., plans, tools, processes for requirements, interfaces, and 

configuration management);

Mission assurance approach, including (i) fault tolerance and fault management, (ii) product 

assurance, and (iii) reliability (e.g., use or non-use of redundancy, requirements for burn-in of 

parts, requirements for total operating time without failure prior to flight, etc.);

Identification of instrument to spacecraft interfaces;
B-19

Design maturity and heritage of mission elements (instruments, spacecraft, ground systems, 

and mission design, etc.) by reference to Appendix 10, Heritage, of the proposal (see 

Section J of this appendix);

Essential trade studies that are to be conducted;

Approach to management and closure of action items, hardware discrepancies, test 

anomalies, etc.; and

Approach for handling special processes (e.g., if radioactive sources are proposed, the 

approach to supporting the development, submittal, and approval of the necessary NEPA 

process and the Nuclear Safety Launch Approval process).

4. New Technologies/Advanced Developments.

This section does not apply for the use of NEXT, AMBR, aerocapture, or ASRG.

Requirement B-37. This section shall describe any proposed new technologies and/or advanced 

developments and the approaches that will be taken to reduce their associated risks. If no 

advanced development is required, the justification for TRL 6 or above shall be clearly 

demonstrated. These descriptions shall address, at a minimum, the following topics:

Identification and justification of the TRL for each proposed new development and/or 

advanced development at the time the proposal is submitted (for TRL definitions, see 

NPR 7120.8, NASA Research and Technology Program and Project Management 

Requirements, Appendix J, in the Program Library);

Rationale for combining the TRL values of subsystems to derive the full system TRL as 

proposed;

Rationale for the stated TRL value of a system that is an adaptation of an existing system of 

known TRL;

The proposed approach for maturing each of the identified items to a minimum of TRL 6, 

defined as ―system/subsystem model or prototype demonstration in a relevant environment, 

space, or ground‖ by the end of Phase B (include discussion of simulations, prototyping, 

systems testing, life testing, etc., as appropriate);

An estimate of the resources (manpower, cost, and schedule) required to complete the 

technology development; and

Approaches to fallbacks/alternatives that exist and are planned, a description of the cost, 

decision date(s) for fallbacks/alternatives, relevant development schedules, and performance 

liens they impose on the baseline design, and the decision milestones for their 

implementation.

5. Assembly, Integration, Test, and Verification.

Requirement B-38. An illustration and brief discussion of the time-phased flow of the 

Integration and Test (I&T) Plan shall be presented. It shall summarize the key facilities, testbeds, 

and team members involved in the I&T Plan.

Requirement B-39. The project's verification approach shall be described briefly in this section. 

Flow diagrams, narrative text, and/or other relevant data may be used to convey this information. 

Elements of the approach that pose special challenges for the project (e.g., mission critical 
B-20

performance or functional requirements that can‘t be tested on the ground, special facilities that 

may be required for testing, large scale simulation tools that must be developed and how they 

will be validated, critical path items, etc.) shall be highlighted. The I&T description shall 

demonstrate the credibility of the overall I&T approach, as reflected by consistency between the 

described test plans and the schedule, cost, and other resources needed to carry them out.

6. Schedule.

Requirement B-40. A project schedule foldout(s) covering all phases of the investigation shall 

be provided. This foldout(s) will not be counted against the page limits. The schedule format 

shall indicate the month and year of each milestone, have a corresponding table of dates, and 

follow standard NASA WBS elements for task descriptions as prescribed in NM 7120-81. The 

schedule chart and accompanying narrative, which is included in the page count for this section,

shall address proposed major milestones including, at a minimum, the following items:

Spacecraft development and major review dates;

Instrument development and major review dates, including instrument-to-spacecraft/host 

integration and test;

Ground systems development and major review dates (e.g., mission operations and data 

analysis development schedule);

Major deliverables (e.g., Interface Control Documents (ICDs), simulators, engineering 

modules, flight modules, etc.);

Launch vehicle integration and launch readiness;

Compliance with NEPA and Nuclear Safety Launch Approval processes, if appropriate;

Long-lead item specifications, development paths, and their impacts to schedule;

Development schedule for SEOs, if any;

Schedule critical path identification; and

Funded schedule reserve, with indications of appropriate reserves associated with major 

milestones and deliverables.

Multiple foldouts are permitted and will not count against the page count for this section. 

G. MANAGEMENT

The following expands requirements in the AO, in particular Requirement 26, Requirement 39

through Requirement 46, Requirement 62, and Requirement 76.

Requirement B-41. This section shall describe the investigator's proposed management 

approach. The management organization (including an organization chart) and decision-making 

process shall be described, and the teaming arrangement and team communications shall be 

discussed. The organization chart should clearly indicate how the mission team is structured. The 

names of the primary team members, their organization, and their reporting relationship in the 

program shall be provided.

Requirement B-42. This section shall describe the specific roles and responsibilities of the PI, 

PM, and other named key management team members. It shall describe the qualifications and 

experience, especially any previous experience with similar systems and/or equipment (including 
B-21

their performance in meeting cost and schedule), of these key management team members, and 

demonstrate that they are commensurate with the technical and managerial needs of the proposed 

investigation. It shall also describe the qualifications and experience of the primary 

implementing institutions and demonstrate that they are commensurate with the technical and 

managerial needs of the proposed investigation.

Requirement B-43. This section shall describe the top risks considered significant by the PI and 

the PM, especially technical risks and risks associated with contributed hardware (if any), and 

potential mitigation strategies and associated schedule impacts. If cost risks are in this list, they 

should be described here and then discussed in Section H (see Requirement B-48). The 

management strategies for control, allocation, and release of technical margins, cost reserves, 

and schedule reserves shall be described. The approach to any potential descopes, including 

savings of resources (mass, power, dollars, schedule, etc.) by implementing descopes, and the 

decision milestone(s) for implementing descopes shall be discussed. Specifically, this description 

shall identify how these margins and reserves are to be allocated, tracked, and monitored, with 

what tools and by whom, and who will have the authority to release them. When contracts are 

required, the acquisition strategy, including any incentive strategy, shall be described.

Requirement B-44. If the proposal contains proposed contributions or cooperative arrangements, 

this section shall describe the technical and management interfaces in any proposed cooperative 

arrangements, explicitly demonstrating that the contributions are within the contributors' 

scientific and technical capabilities, and contingency plans for coping with potential failures of 

the proposed cooperative arrangements.

Requirement B-45. In the case where a proposal does not provide the required management and 

schedule details, for whatever reason, this section shall (i) describe the current management 

approach and schedule, (ii) justify that the development of that aspect of the project management 

and schedule is not required at this stage and that it is acceptable to develop details later, and 

(iii) explain why the lack of information at this stage should not translate into a risk to the 

proposer's ability to implement the mission as proposed, and (iv) justify the adequacy of the 

proposed cost reserves, given that the proposed cost is not allowed to increase beyond the cost 

cap during Phase A or at any later time. The process for developing the required depth of 

information, along with a corresponding schedule, shall be explicitly included among the plans 

for future activity.

H. COST AND COST ESTIMATING METHODOLOGY

The following expands requirements in the AO, in particular Requirement 58 through 

Requirement 61 and Requirement 63 through Requirement 72.

This section of the proposal must include an estimated cost of the investigation, a description of 

the methodologies used to develop the estimate, and a discussion of cost risks.

Requirement B-46. This section shall include the estimated cost of the proposed investigation. 

The estimated cost shall encompass all proposed activities, including all applicable mission 

phases, mission unique or special launch services, flight systems, ground systems, ground 
B-22

network fees, contributions, core E/PO program, any other AO-specific activities (e.g., SC), and

all cost reserves. These costs shall be consistent with the policies and requirements described in 

Sections 4 and 5 of this AO.

Requirement B-47. This section shall include a description of the methodologies used to 

develop the estimate. The cost estimating methodology discussion in this section shall provide an 

overview of the cost estimate development process. Any additional cost estimates or other 

validation efforts shall be described, the results presented, and any significant discrepancies 

discussed. The rationale for the proposed cost reserve levels shall be presented. Proposers shall 

provide additional Basis of Estimate data to assist the validation of their costs estimates. 

Examples of useful Basis of Estimate data include cost comparisons to analogous 

items/missions, vendor quotes, and parametric model results.

Requirement B-48. This section shall include a discussion of cost risks.

Requirement B-49. This section shall provide a foldout cost table, Table B3, which will not be 

counted against the page limit. Table B3 shall identify the proposed cost required in each mission 

phase and in each fiscal year; the costs shall be in real year dollars (RY$). The top portion of 

Table B3 shall contain cost data relevant to the PI-managed Mission Cost. The lower portion 

shall contain cost data for contributions and enhanced mission costs. The rows in Table B3 shall 

be the NASA standard WBS elements as defined in NM 7120-81. The costs for most elements 

shall be provided to WBS level 2, as shown in Table B3. Exceptions are the costs of individual 

instruments, any unique flight system elements such as landers or sample return capsules, DSN, 

and non-standard elements such as sample facilities, which shall be explicitly shown. The 

columns in Table B3 shall be grouped and subtotaled by mission phase and shall be labeled with 

the appropriate fiscal years. Fiscal years that span more than one mission phase shall be split into 

two columns by mission phase. The final two columns are totals in real year dollars (RY$) and

totals in fiscal year 2010 dollars (FY10$). Proposers shall use their own forward pricing rates to 

translate between real year dollars (RY$) and fiscal year 2010 dollars (FY10$). For organizations 

that are without approved forward pricing rates, proposers may use the NASA inflation/deflation 

indices in Table B4 to translate between real year dollars (RY$) and fiscal year 2010 dollars

(FY10$).

Requirement B-50. Table B3 shall be provided additionally in EXCEL format on each CD 

submitted with the proposal.

Requirement B-51. This section shall include a statement as to whether the proposer‘s approved 

forward pricing rates were used or NASA‘s inflation/deflation indices were used. If the 

proposer‘s approved forward pricing rates were used, this section shall include an explanation for 

how the forward pricing rates were derived to translate between real year dollars (RY$) and

fiscal year 2010 dollars (FY10$) in Table B3.
B-23

I. SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN, ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF 

EDUCATION AND PUBLIC OUTREACH, AND OPTIONAL STUDENT

COLLABORATION

The following expands requirements in the AO, in particular Requirement 52 through 

Requirement 57.

1. Small Business Subcontracting Plan

Requirement B-52. This section shall include one of the following, as applicable: 

(i) demonstration that the offeror is a small business concern, (ii) demonstration that 

subcontracting opportunities are not reasonably available in the performance of the Phase A 

concept study, or (iii) small business subcontracting plans meeting the requirements in 

Section 5.5.1, Appendix A, and referenced parts of the FAR.

2. Education and Public Outreach

Requirement B-53. This section shall include the required statement of commitment from the PI 

(see Section 5.5.2 of this AO).

3. Student Collaboration

Requirement B-54. If a Student Collaboration (SC), as described in Section 5.5.3 of this AO is 

proposed, then this section shall provide details of the development schedule of the SC, including 

decision points for determining SC readiness for flight. This section shall describe how the SC 

can be incorporated into the mission on a nonimpact basis. This section shall show that the SC is

clearly separable from the rest of the proposed effort.

J. APPENDICES

Requirement B-55. 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. No 

other appendices are permitted.

1. Table of Proposal Participants

The following expands requirements in the AO, in particular Requirement 82.

Requirement B-56. A table of proposal participants shall be provided. The table shall include all 

organizations named in the proposal including contributing organizations. The primary purpose 

of the table is to aid NASA in avoiding conflicts of interest during the evaluation of the proposal. 

A secondary purpose is to provide material helpful for the evaluation and selection process. The 

table shall have three columns: (i) name of organization, including city and state/country where it 

is located, (ii) role of organization, and (iii) total cost or budget for that organization (real year 

dollars over the life of proposal for baseline mission). The table shall have a row for every 

organization named in the proposal, and the rows shall be organized into three sections: (i) major 

partners, (ii) science only, non-hardware partners, and (iii) minor partners, vendors, and 
B-24

suppliers, as known at the time of the proposal. Major partners are defined to be organizations 

responsible for providing project management, system engineering, major hardware elements, 

science instruments, integration and test, mission operations, and other major elements of the 

proposed investigation, as defined by the proposer.

2. Letters of Commitment.

The following expands requirements in the AO, in particular Requirement 33, Requirement 75, 

Requirement 81, and Requirement 82.

Requirement B-57. Letters of commitment signed by an institutional official shall be provided 

from (i) all organizations offering contributions of goods and/or services (both U.S. and non-U.S. 

but excluding Co-I services) on a no-exchange-of-funds basis, including all non-U.S. 

organizations providing hardware or software to the investigation, and, (ii) unless otherwise 

explicitly excepted elsewhere in this AO, all major participants in the proposal regardless of 

source of funding. Major partners are the organizations in section (i) of the Table of Proposal 

Participants. Requirements for letters of commitment may be found in Section 5.8.1 of this AO.

3. Resumes.

The following expands requirements in the AO, in particular Requirement 39, Requirement 40, 

Requirement 48, and Requirement 49.

Requirement B-58. This section shall include resumes or curriculum vitae for the PI, PM, all 

Co-Is identified in the science section, and for any key project personnel who are named in the 

proposal. Specifically, each resume shall cite the individual‘s experience that is pertinent to the 

role and responsibilities that she/he will assume in the proposed investigation. Project 

management experience shall be included in the resumes of the PI, PM, and Project SE (if 

named). Resumes or curriculum vitae shall be no longer than three pages for the PI and one page 

for each additional participant. Resumes shall be organized alphabetically, by surname after that 

of the PI.

4. Summary of Proposed Program Cooperative Contributions.

The following expands requirements in the AO, in particular Requirement 71 through 

Requirement 73 and Requirement 78.

Cooperative contributions are defined to be those that are to be provided to the proposed 

investigation from a U.S. or non-U.S. partner on a no-exchange-of-funds basis. In order to aid 

NASA in conducting an equitable assessment of risks, this section shall include (a) an ―exploded 

diagram‖ of the investigation and (b) a supporting table.

a. An ―exploded diagram‖ of the investigation.

Requirement B-59. If a proposal includes cooperative contributions, this section shall include an 

―exploded diagram‖ of the investigation (see example figure) that provides a clear visual 
B-25

representation of cooperative contributions incorporated in the proposed implementation 

approach. All cooperative contributions, including those that will require an international 

agreement or interagency memorandum of agreement, shall be shown in this diagram. Each 

contribution shown shall display a unique name for the contribution, as well as the identity of the 

contributing entity. However, the following should not be shown:

i. If there are no cooperative contributions of spacecraft, launch vehicle or services, or ground 

operations or facilities, these boxes should not be shown on the diagram at all.

ii. Scientific collaborations such as joint data analysis that do not involve contribution of flight 

hardware or other critical items, should not be shown.

iii. U.S. or non-U.S. goods and services obtained by contract using NASA funds are not 

cooperative contributions and are also not to be shown.

SAMPLE EXPLODED DIAGRAM

b. A supporting table of collaborative contributions

Requirement B-60. If a proposal includes cooperative contributions, this section shall include a

supporting table with more information that elaborates upon each cooperative contribution 

shown in the exploded diagram. The table shall include, for each contribution, the following 

information:

i. Unique name identifying the contribution (matching the name on the exploded diagram);

ii. The identity of the providing organization, whether U.S. or non-U.S.;
B-26

iii. The roles and responsibilities of the providing organization, including cross reference to 

information in the proposal providing further detail as required in Section 5.6.7 of this AO;

iv. The identification of the funding sponsor, if different from the organization identified in item 

(ii) above;

v. The approximate value of the contribution, in U.S. dollars, as defined in Section 5.6.7 of this 

AO; and

vi. Cross reference to letters of commitment, as required in Section 5.8.1 of this AO.

5. Draft International Participation Plan - Discussion on Compliance with U.S. Export Laws 

and Regulations.

The following expands requirements in the AO, in particular Requirement 80.

Requirement B-61. If a proposal includes international participation, either through involvement 

of non-U.S. nationals and/or involvement of non-U.S. entities, this section shall discuss 

compliance with U.S. export laws and regulations; e.g., 22 CFR 120-130, et seq. and 15 CFR 

730-774, et seq., as applicable to the scenario surrounding the particular international 

participation. The discussion shall describe in detail the proposed international participation and 

is to include, but not be limited to, whether or not the international participation may require the 

proposer to obtain the prior approval of the Department of State or the Department of Commerce 

via a technical assistance agreement or an export license, or whether a license 

exemption/exception may apply. If prior approvals via licenses are necessary, discuss whether 

the license has been applied for or, if not, the projected timing of the application and any 

implications for the schedule. Information regarding U.S. export regulations is available at 

http://www.pmddtc.state.gov/ and http://www.bis.doc.gov/. Proposers are advised that under 

U.S. law and regulation, spacecraft and their specifically designed, modified, or configured 

systems, components, parts, etc., such as instrumentation responsive to this AO, are generally 

considered ―Defense Articles‖ on the United States Munitions List and subject to the provisions 

of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), 22 CFR 120-130, et seq.

Requirement B-62. Foreign nationals requiring access to NASA facilities and information 

systems will be required to comply with Homeland Security Presidential Directive HSPD-12 (see 

http://hspd12.nasa.gov/), where applicable. This appendix shall also discuss the impact, if any, 

on the investigation and the proposed international participation of compliance with HSPD-12. If 

no impact is anticipated, this shall be explicitly stated.

6. Planetary Protection and/or Sample Curation Plan.

6a. Planetary Protection Plan

The following expands requirements in the AO, in particular Requirement 11 and Requirement 

12.

Requirement B-63. If applicable, this section shall describe the plan for compliance with the 

planetary protection requirements described in Section 5.1.5.1 of this AO. At a minimum, it shall 

address (i) the anticipated planetary protection Category of the mission under NASA directives; 
B-27

(ii) the proposed mission operational accommodations to comply with the anticipated 

requirements, including organizational responsibilities; and (iii) the proposed steps to be taken 

for the preparation of flyby, orbital, and/or landed portions of the spacecraft to comply with any 

requirements for overall microbiological cleanliness and recontamination prevention prior to 

launch. If describing a sample return mission, this appendix shall additionally address (iv) the 

nature of the proposed implementation of back-contamination control and subsequent 

containment and testing of returned samples, or the proposed rationale for the mission to be 

relieved from a containment requirement. This appendix shall address steps intended to be taken 

for planetary protection compliance and the implementing organization(s) responsible for 

implementing those steps.

6b. Sample and Space-Exposed Hardware Curation Plan

The following expands requirements in the AO, in particular Requirement 13, Requirement 14, 

Requirement 16, and Requirement 17.

Requirement B-64. If applicable, this section shall describe the plan for sample and spaceexposed hardware curation at the NASA JSC Astromaterials Curatorial Facility in accordance 

with the requirements in Section 5.1.5.2. At a minimum, this plan shall describe (i) the nature of 

samples expected to be returned, (ii) the methods used to prevent sample contamination or 

degradation during collection and return to Earth, (iii) the methods used to prevent sample 

contamination or degradation during post-return curation, (iv) the general procedures for storage, 

subsampling, documentation, distribution, and security, (v) the preliminary examination of the 

samples, (vi) the method(s) chosen for reporting the results of the preliminary examination, and 

(vii) the preparation (within 6 months of return) of a sample catalog sufficient for other scientists 

to request samples. The plan shall demonstrate that at least 75% of the returned sample shall be 

preserved for future studies by members of the science community. 

7. Discussion of End of Mission Spacecraft Disposal Requirements.

The following expands requirements in the AO, in particular Requirement 37.

This appendix is required only for proposed missions to Low Earth Orbit (LEO) (<2000 km 

perigee), near Geosynchronous orbit (GEO) (GEO ± 300 km), or the Moon (orbiters and 

landers).

Requirement B-65. This section shall discuss briefly how the mission meets the orbit disposal 

requirement applicable to its proposed orbit. For LEO missions, this section shall briefly discuss 

the lifetime of the mission and whether it meets the 25-year post-mission (or 30-year from 

launch – whichever comes first) requirement for LEO missions.

This section shall include a mission lifetime analysis demonstrating satisfaction of the above 

requirement, addressing all assumptions and inputs contributing to the analysis. These 

assumptions and inputs shall include, at a minimum:

Vehicle Mass

Drag Area or Cross-sectional Area
B-28

Initial orbit used for the analysis

Solar and atmospheric conditions assumptions (i.e., models or parameters)

Methodology: analytical tool, table lookup, reference plot.

If the plan is to dispose of the satellite at the end of mission, this section shall provide the 

parameters of the disposal orbit, the delta-v allocation for disposal, and any other relevant 

assumptions.

Requirement B-66. For Lunar missions, this section shall include a discussion of how end-ofmission requirements will be met.

The following references are available in the Program Library:

NPR 8715.6, NASA Procedural Requirements for Limiting Orbital Debris; and

NASA-STD-8719.14, NASA Process for Limiting Orbital Debris.

8. Compliance with Procurement Regulations by NASA PI Proposals.

The following expands requirements in the AO, in particular Requirement 47.

This appendix is required only for proposals submitted by NASA PIs or NASA Centers (excluding 

JPL). Proposals submitted by NASA Centers must comply with regulations governing proposals 

submitted by NASA PIs (NFS 1872.308). Additional instructions may be found in Procurement 

Information Circular (PIC) 05-15, which is available in the Program Library.

Requirement B-67. For NASA Center proposals, this section shall include any descriptions, 

justifications, representations, indications, statements, and/or explanations that are required by 

the regulations.

9. Master Equipment List.

The following expands requirements in the AO, in particular Requirement 67.

Requirement B-68. This section shall include a Master Equipment List (MEL) summarizing all 

major components of each flight element subsystem and each instrument element component to 

support validation of proposed mass estimates, design heritage, and cost. A template for this 

MEL is included as Table B5.

Requirement B-69. The MEL shall be additionally provided in EXCEL format on each CD 

submitted with the proposal.

The breakouts should be traceable to block diagrams and heritage claims provided in other parts 

of the proposal. For each major component, current best estimates (CBE) and contingency for 

mass and power, number of flight units required, and some description of the heritage basis must 

be provided. Power values should represent nominal steady-state operational power 

requirements. Information to be provided includes identification of planned spares and 

prototypes, required deliveries for simulators and testing, contingency allocations for individual 
B-29

components, and other component description/characteristics. Certain items (like electronic 

boxes and solar arrays) should include additional details, as applicable, to identify and separate 

individual elements.

10. Heritage.

The following expands requirements in the AO, in particular Requirement 63.

Requirement B-70. This section shall discuss each element of any heritage from which the 

proposed investigation derives substantial benefit, including heritage from spacecraft 

subsystems, instruments, ground systems, flight and ground software, test set ups, simulations, 

analyses, etc. This discussion shall be at an appropriate level of granularity (e.g., component, 

assembly, subsystem) to clearly separate the heritage element from other elements of the design. 

The discussion of each element shall include:

a concise description of the design heritage claimed;

the anticipated benefits to the proposed investigation;

a brief rationale supporting the claim that the benefits of heritage will be achieved; and

for any proposed elements with substantial design heritage, a comparison of the cost of the 

heritage items to the proposed cost.

Proposals must substantiate all heritage claims, including descriptions of changes required to 

accommodate project-unique applications and needs. Where enhancements to heritage elements 

are proposed or heritage is from a different application, sufficient descriptions must be provided 

to independently assess the current level of maturity.

The evaluation team will use a scale with at least three levels (full, partial, or none) as illustrated 

in the table below.
B-30

Full heritage Partial heritage No heritage

Design Identical Minimal modifications Major modifications

Manufacture Identical

Limited update of 

parts and processes 

necessary

Many updates of 

parts or processes 

necessary

Software Identical

Identical functionality 

with limited update of 

software modules 

(<50%)

Major modifications 

(>=50%) 

Provider

Identical 

provider and 

development 

team

Different however 

with substantial 

involvement of 

original team

Different and 

minimal or no 

involvement of

original team

Use Identical

Same interfaces and 

similar use within a 

novel overall context

Significantly different 

from original

Operating 

Environment Identical Within margins of 

original

Significantly different 

from original

Referenced Prior Use In operation Built and successfully 

ground tested

Not yet successfully 

ground tested

11. List of Abbreviations and Acronyms.

The following expands requirements in the AO, in particular Requirement 96.

Requirement B-71. This section shall provide a list of abbreviations and acronyms.

12. List of References (optional).

In addition to the above items, this section may provide a reference list of documents and other 

materials that were fundamentally important in generating the proposal. This may include a 

Uniform Resource Locator (URL) for documents that are available through the Internet. As 

noted at the outset of Appendix B of this AO, however, proposals must be self-contained: any 

data or other information intended as part of a proposal must be included within the proposal 

itself. If any documents or other materials are submitted as a part of a proposal, they must fit 

within the prescribed page limits. If internal documents such as Flight Project Practices are 

referenced, an externally accessible URL shall be provided to download them.

13. Infusion Plan for NASA-Developed Technology

The following expands requirements in the AO, in particular Requirement 89 and Requirement 

90.
B-31

Requirement B-72. If applicable, this section, which shall not exceed 5 pages in length, shall 

describe any proposed utilization of NASA-developed technology. At a minimum, this 

description shall address the following topics to the extent that they are not addressed in the body 

of the proposal:

1) Demonstration of the offerors‘ understanding of the chosen NASA-developed technology, as 

well as their understanding of inherent risks associated with its use.

2) Description of technology infusion implementation plan with respect to utilization of the 

chosen NASA-developed technology. At a minimum, this shall include:

a. Description of any required flight hardware development and integration plans for 

producing flight-qualified hardware/software.

b. If any fallbacks/alternatives exist and are planned, description of the cost, schedule, and 

performance liens they will impose on the baseline design, as well as the decision 

milestones for their implementation.

3) Description of the application, appropriate use, and benefits of the NASA-developed 

technology in the proposed investigation, including description of how this technology would 

enhance (or in the case of ASRG enable) the proposed investigation ̳s science return.

4) Description of how the offeror would engage with the relevant NASA program office‘s

intention to have insight into the flight hardware development, IV&V testing and results, 

flight development lessons learned, and performance data obtained during flight for the 

chosen NASA-developed technology.

This section need not repeat information that may be found in the body of the proposal. 

However, for completeness, discussions of NASA-developed technology in the body of the 

proposal should be referenced from this section.

14. Description of Enabling Nature of ASRG

The following expands requirements in the AO, in particular Requirement 91.

Requirement B-73. If applicable, this section, which shall not exceed 3 pages in length, shall 

describe how the proposed investigation is enabled by the use of the ASRG. This discussion shall 

include descriptions of any trade studies performed as well as estimates of the impact to the 

investigation‘s science return and mission design should ASRGs not be employed. If an Earth or 

Venus gravity-assist is proposed, then this section should also contain a description of the 

enabling nature of this trajectory.
B-32

TABLE B1

EXAMPLE SCIENCE TRACEABILITY MATRIX

An EXCEL version of this template is available in the Program Library.
B-33

TABLE B2

EXAMPLE MISSION TRACEABILITY MATRIX

An EXCEL version of this template is available in the Program Library.
B-34

TABLE B3

TOTAL MISSION COST FUNDING PROFILE TEMPLATE

An EXCEL version of this template is available in the Program Library.
B-35

TABLE B4

NASA FY09 NEW START INFLATION INDEX

for use in FY10

Fiscal Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Inflation Rate 2.4% 2.9% 3.0% 2.9% 2.8% 2.8% 2.9%

Cumulative Inflation Index 1.000 1.024 1.054 1.085 1.117 1.148 1.180 1.214

Use an inflation rate of 2.9% for years beyond 2017.

Note: Proposers shall use their own forward pricing rates. For organizations that are without 

forward pricing rates, proposers may use the NASA new start inflation index in Table B4 (see 

Appendix B, Section H).
B-36

TABLE B5

MASTER EQUIPMENT LIST

An EXCEL version of this template is available in the Program Library.
C-1

APPENDIX C

GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Part C.1: GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Announcement of Opportunity (AO) — A document used to announce opportunities to 

participate in NASA programs.

AO Process — A term used to describe the program planning and acquisition procedure used to 

acquire investigations through an AO.

AO Steering Committee — A NASA committee composed wholly of full-time Federal 

Government employees that provides advice to the Mission Directorate Associate Administrator 

and provides procedural review over the investigation evaluation, categorization, and selection 

process.

Backward contamination — The transmittal to Earth from another body of viable organisms by 

a spacecraft or spacecraft component.

Baseline science mission — The mission that, if fully implemented, would accomplish the entire 

set of scientific objectives proposed for the investigation.

Baseline science objectives — The entire set of scientific objectives proposed for the 

investigation.

Basis of Estimate (BOE) — A record of the procedures, ground rules and assumptions, data, 

environment, and events that underlie a cost estimate‘s development or update. Good 

documentation of the BOE supports the cost estimate‘s credibility.

Categorization — The process whereby proposed investigations are classified into four categories 

synopsized here as Category I (recommended for immediate acceptance); Category II 

(recommended for acceptance but at a lower priority than Category I proposals); Category III 

(sound investigations requiring further development); Category IV (not recommended).

Categorization Subcommittee — An ad hoc subcommittee of the AO Steering Committee, 

composed wholly of Civil Servants and Intergovernmental Personnel Act appointees (some of 

whom may be from Government agencies other than NASA) and appointed by the Associate 

Administrator for the Science Mission Directorate, that categorizes proposals for investigations 

submitted in response to an AO based on the evaluations.

Co-Investigator (Co-I) — An investigator who plays a necessary role in the proposed 

investigation and whose services are either funded by NASA or are contributed by his/her 

employer. A NASA employee can participate as a Co-I on an investigation proposed by a private 

organization.
C-2

Collaborator — An individual who is less critical to the successful development of the mission 

than a Co-I. A collaborator may not be funded through the proposal. A collaborator may be

committed to provide a focused contribution to the project for a specific task, such as data 

analysis. If funding support is requested in the proposal for an individual, that individual shall 

not be identified as a collaborator but shall be identified as a Co-Investigator or another category 

of team member.

Complete spaceflight mission — A science investigation requiring an Earth-orbiting, nearEarth, or deep-space mission, that encompasses all appropriate mission phases from project 

initiation (Phase A) through mission operations (Phase E) and spacecraft disposal (Phase F), 

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

of the data to an appropriate NASA data archive, preliminary analysis of returned samples, and, 

if applicable, extended mission operations or other science enhancements.

Contingency — That quantity, when added to a resource, results in the maximum expected 

value for that resource.

Contribution — Labor, services, or hardware funded by any source other than Program 

sponsoring the AO.

Descope — Any alteration of a mission that renders it unable to accomplish one or more of the 

Baseline Science Mission scientific objectives.

Earned Value Management (EVM) — A tool for measuring and assessing project performance 

through the integration of technical scope with schedule and cost objectives during the execution 

of the project. EVM provides quantification of technical progress, enabling management to gain 

insight into project status and project completion costs and schedules.

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) — The regulations governing the conduct of 

acquisition.

Forward contamination — The transmittal from Earth to a targeted solar system body of viable 

organisms by a spacecraft or spacecraft component.

Guest Investigators — Investigators selected to conduct observations and obtain data within the 

capability of a NASA mission, which are additional to the mission‘s primary objectives. 

Sometimes referred to as Guest Observers or General Observers.

Implementing organization — The organization chosen by the Principal Investigator to manage 

the development of the mission.

Investigation — Activities or effort aimed at the generation of new knowledge. NASA-sponsored 

investigations generally concern the generation and analysis of data obtained through measurement 

of space phenomena or Earth phenomena using spaceflight hardware developed and operated for 

that purpose.
C-3

Investigation Team — The group of scientists, engineers, and other professionals implementing 

an investigation.

Key Management Team Members — The project leaders whose qualifications and experience 

are relevant and necessary to the success of the project. Key management team members are the 

PI, PM, PSE, and, where appropriate, PS and partner leads, and other roles as identified in the 

proposal.

Margin — The allowance carried on a resource (e.g., budget, schedule, mass) to account for 

uncertainties and risks. It is the difference between the maximum possible capability of a 

resource (the physical limit or the agreed-to limit) and the maximum expected value for a 

resource.

Minimum science mission — The mission that would accomplish the minimum subset of 

Baseline Science Mission scientific objectives sufficient to justify the proposed cost of the 

mission.

Mission — Used interchangeably with investigation.

Mission Architecture — The summary level description of the over all approach to the mission in 

the context of achieving the science objectives including mission elements such as flight systems, 

instruments, high-level mission plan, high-level operations concept, etc.

NASA FAR Supplement — Acquisition regulations promulgated by NASA in addition to the 

FAR.

Notice of Intent — A notice or letter submitted by a potential investigator indicating the intent to 

submit a proposal in response to an AO.

Passivation — The complete removal of any stored energy on board a spacecraft including 

residual propellants (by venting or burning), residual pressurants (by venting), electrical energy 

(by discharge or disconnection of batteries), kinetic energy (by unloading or de-spinning 

momentum wheels or gyros), and the disabling of range safety explosives.

Payload — A specific complement of instruments, space equipment, and support hardware carried 

to space to accomplish a mission or discrete activity in space.

Peer Review (n) — A gathering of experts in related disciplinary areas convened as a 

subcommittee of the AO Steering Committee to review proposals for flight investigations.

Peer Review (v) — The process of proposal review utilizing a group of peers in accordance with 

the review criteria as outlined in the Announcement of Opportunity.

Performance Metrics — A multi-party agreement between the Program Office, the PI 

institution, the project management institution, and other major partners that is used for project 

evaluation by NASA.
C-4

PI-Managed Mission Cost — The funding that the Program sponsoring the AO will be 

expected to provide to the PI‘s implementation team for the development and execution of the 

proposed project, Phases A through F. It includes any reserves applied to the development and 

operation of the mission as well. It also includes any costs that are required to be accounted for 

against the PI-Managed Mission Cost even though the PI is not responsible for those costs (e.g., 

NASA-provided telecom and network). The PI-Managed Mission Cost is capped.

Principal Investigator (PI) — The person who conceives of an investigation and leads 

implementation of it. The PI is invested by NASA with primary responsibility for implementing 

and executing selected investigations. A NASA employee can participate as a PI only on a 

Government-proposed investigation.

Program — An activity involving human resources, materials, funding, and scheduling necessary 

to achieve desired goals.

Project — Within a program, an undertaking with a scheduled beginning and ending, which 

normally involves the design, construction, and operation of one or more spacecraft and necessary 

ground support in order to accomplish a scientific or technical objective.

Project Manager (PM) — The individual responsible to the PI for overseeing the technical and 

programmatic implementation of the project. The PM works closely with the PI in order to 

ensure that the mission meets its objectives within the resources committed to the project.

Project Office — An office established to manage a project.

Proposing Organization — The organization that submits the proposal; commonly this is also the 

Principal Investigator‘s home institution.

Reserve — Resource not allocated to any specific task but held by the project for unexpected 

needs.

Resiliency — The quality of a mission to gracefully degrade from the Baseline Science Mission 

to the Minimum Science Mission as technical, schedule, or budgetary problems occur.

Risk — The combination of the probability that a program or project will experience an 

undesired event and the consequences, impact, or severity of the undesired event, were it to 

occur. The undesired event may come from technical or programmatic sources (e.g., a cost 

overrun, schedule slippage, safety mishap, health problem, malicious activities, environmental 

impact, failure to achieve a needed scientific or technological objective, or success criterion). 

Both the probability and consequences may have associated uncertainties.

Science Enhancement Option (SEO) — An activity, such as extended missions, guest 

investigator programs, general observer programs, participating scientist programs, 

interdisciplinary scientist programs, or archival data analysis programs that have the potential to 

broaden the scientific impact of investigations.
C-5

Selection Official — The NASA official designated to determine the source for award of a 

contract or grant.

Team — A group of investigators responsible for carrying out and reporting the results of an 

investigation or group of investigations.

Team Member — A participant in an investigation, including the Principal Investigator, a CoInvestigator, or any member of an investigation team. Team members are identified by role on the 

proposal‘s Electronic Cover Page.

Termination review — A review established to determine whether remedial actions, including 

changes in management structure and/or key personnel, would better enable a project to operate 

within established cost, schedule, and/or technical constraints. If a termination review determines 

that no remedy is likely to improve matters, NASA may consider termination of the project.

Total Mission Cost — The PI-Managed Mission Cost plus any additional costs that are 

contributed or provided in any way other than through the Program sponsoring the AO.

Unencumbered reserve — Unexpended reserves that are not being held for an identified, but 

not yet realized, risk.

Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) — A product-oriented hierarchical division of the 

hardware, software, services, and data required to produce a project‘s end product(s), structured 

according to the way the work will be performed, and reflective of the way in which 

program/project costs, schedule, technical and risk data are to be accumulated, summarized, and 

reported.

Part C.2: COST ELEMENT DEFINITIONS

This is a short dictionary of definitions for the cost elements shown in the tables and discussed in 

the body of this AO.

Education and Public Outreach — Includes all costs associated with developing and 

implementing the proposed investigation‘s programs for education and public outreach.

Instruments — Instrument costs include costs incurred to design, develop, and fabricate the 

individual scientific instruments or instrument systems through delivery of the instruments to the 

spacecraft for integration. Costs for instrument integration, assembly, and test are to be shown 

separately from instrument development. Costs incurred for integration of the instruments to the 

spacecraft are included in the Spacecraft Integration, Assembly and Test cost element (see 

below).

Launch Approval Engineering — The process by which National Environmental Protection 

Act and any applicable launch safety approval requirements are satisfied.
C-6

Launch Checkout and Orbital Operations — Launch checkout and orbital operations support 

costs are those involving prelaunch planning, launch site support, launch vehicle integration 

(spacecraft portion), and the first 30 days of flight operations.

Launch Services — Launch vehicles and services are either procured and provided by NASA to 

launch spacecraft under fixed price contracts or provided by the proposer. The launch service 

price includes procurement of the ELV, spacecraft-to-launch vehicle integration, placement of 

spacecraft into designated orbit, analysis, postflight mission data evaluation, oversight of the 

launch service and coordination of mission-specific integration activities.

Mission Operations and Data Analysis (MO&DA) — This cost element refers only to Phase E 

(postlaunch) and has two major components: Mission Operations and Data Analysis. Mission 

operations comprises all activities required to plan and execute the science objectives, including 

spacecraft and instrument navigation, control, pointing, health monitoring, and calibration. Data 

analysis activities include collecting, processing, distributing, and archiving the scientific data. 

MO&DA costs include postlaunch all costs for people, procedures, services, hardware, and 

software to carry out these activities. It includes post-launch science team support costs. It does 

not include costs of any Science Enhancement Option (SEO) activities.

NASA Center Costs (all categories) — Additional costs born by the science investigation for 

NASA Center participation. For example, there may be additional project management/systems 

engineering costs, above those incurred by the spacecraft prime contractor, which are due to 

NASA employee participation. These costs must be reported on a full-cost accounting basis.

Prelaunch Science Team Support — Includes all Phase B/C/D (prelaunch) support costs for 

the science team. (See MO&DA below for postlaunch component.)

Prelaunch GDS/Mission Operations Services (MOS) Development — Includes costs 

associated with development and acquisition of the ground infrastructure used to transport and 

deliver the telemetry and other data to/from the Mission Operations Center and the Science 

Operations Center. (For more information, refer to NASA’s Mission Operations and 

Communications Services document in the Program Library.) Includes development of science 

data processing and analysis capability. Also includes prelaunch training of the command team, 

development and execution of operations simulations, sequence development, and flight control 

software. This element includes any mission-unique tracking network development costs.

Project Management/Mission Analysis/Systems Engineering — Project management costs 

include all efforts associated with project level planning and directing of prime and subcontractor 

efforts and interactions, as well as project-level functions such as quality control and product 

assurance. Mission Analysis includes preflight trajectory analysis and ephemeris development. 

Systems engineering is the project-level engineering required to ensure that all satellite 

subsystems and payloads function properly to achieve system goals and requirements. This cost 

element also includes the data/report generation activities required to produce internal and 

deliverable documentation.
C-7

Project-Unique Facilities — If the proposed science investigation requires construction or lease 

of any ground facilities, include here only the portion of costs to be borne by the proposed 

investigation, with description of the nature and extent of any cost-sharing arrangements 

assumed.

Reserves — In that NASA maintains no reserves for science investigations or missions, reserves 

must include those funds that are not allocated specifically to estimated resources, but are held 

against contingencies or underestimation of resources to mitigate the investigation risk. Reserves 

must be reported according to the proposed reserve management strategy. For example, if the 

reserve is divided into funds to be preallocated to the flight system and instrument payload, with 

another portion held at the science investigation level, specific dollar amounts to fund each must 

be identified.

SEO Activities — Options for enlarging the science/technology impact beyond the baseline 

investigation, such as extended missions, guest investigator programs, general observer 

programs, or archival data analysis programs are termed SEO activities. These costs do not count 

against the funding cap.

Spacecraft Bus — Spacecraft bus costs include costs incurred to design, develop, and fabricate 

(or procure) the spacecraft subsystems. Costs for integration and assembly are not included in 

this element. Component level test and burn-in is included in this cost element. System tests are 

included in Spacecraft IAT (see below).

Spacecraft Integration, Assembly, and Test (IAT) — Spacecraft integration, assembly and test 

is the process of integrating all spacecraft subsystems and payloads into a fully tested, 

operational satellite system. The total cost of IAT for a satellite includes research/requirements 

specification, design and scheduling analysis of IAT procedures, ground support equipment, 

systems test and evaluation, and test data analyses. Typical satellite system tests include thermal 

vacuum, thermal cycle, electrical and mechanical functional, acoustic, vibration, electromagnetic 

compatibility/interference, and pyroshock.

Tracking Services including DSN — This line item includes all costs associated with this 

service for the specific proposed mission profile. (Refer to NASA’ s Mission Operations and 

Communications Services document, in the Program Library.)

Part C.3: ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

AA Associate Administrator

AM&O Agency Management and Operations

AO Announcement of Opportunity

AOR Authorized Organizational Representative

ASRG Advanced Stirling Radioisotope Generator

CADRe Cost Analysis Data Requirement

CASP Cross-Agency Support Program

CCR Central Contractor Registry

CD-ROM Compact Disc-Read Only Memory
C-8

CDR Critical Design Review

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CM&O Center Management and Operations

Co-I Co-Investigator

DOE Department of Energy

DOR Differential One-way Ranging

DSN Deep Space Network

EA Environmental Assessment

EAR Export Administration Regulations

E/PO Education and Public Outreach

EBPOC Electronic Business Point of Contact

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

ELV Expendable Launch Vehicle

EVM Earned Value Management

FAQ Frequently Asked Questions

FAR Federal Acquisition Regulations

FASAB Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board

FFRDC Federally Funded Research and Development Center

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact

FY Fiscal Year

G&A General and Administrative

GAO Government Accountability Office

GDS Ground Data System

GEO Geosynchronous Orbit

GFE Government Furnished Equipment

GFS Government Furnished Service

HBCU Historically Black Colleges and Universities

HBZ HUB Business Zone

HQ NASA Headquarters

HUBZone Historically Underutilized Business Zone

IAT Integration, Assembly, and Test

ICD Interface Control Document

IRD Interface Requirements Document

ITA Independent Technical Authority

ITAR International Traffic in Arms Regulations

IV&V Independent Verification and Validation

JPL Jet Propulsion Laboratory

JSC Johnson Space Center

KDP Key Decision Point

MEL Master Equipment List

MEP Mars Exploration Program

MMRTG Multiple Mission Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator

MO&DA Mission Operations and Data Analysis

MOS Mission Operations Services

MOU Memorandum of Understanding
C-9

NAICS North American Industry Classification System

NAIF Navigation and Ancillary Information Facility

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NASA-STD NASA-Standard

NEN Near-Earth Network

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NFS NASA FAR Supplement

NISN NASA Integrated Services Network

NLSA Nuclear Launch Safety Approval

NODIS NASA Online Directives Information System

NOI Notice of Intent

NPD NASA Policy Directive

NPR NASA Procedural Requirements

NRA NASA Research Announcement

NRC National Research Council

NRP NASA Routine Payload

NSPIRES NASA Solicitation and Proposal Integrated Review and Evaluation System

NSS NASA Safety Standard

OCIAP Organizational Conflict of Interest Avoidance Plan

OMI Other Minority Institution

OSTP Office of Science and Technology Policy

PDF Portable Data Format

PDR Preliminary Design Review

PI Principal Investigator

PIC Procurement Information Circular

P.L. Public Law

PM Project Manager

POC Point of Contact

PS Project Scientist

PSE Project Systems Engineer

RHU Radioisotope Heater Unit

ROD Record of Decision

ROM Rough Order-of-Magnitude

RPS Radioisotope Power System

RTG Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator

RY Real Year

SAIC Science Applications International Corporation

SALMON Stand Alone Mission of Opportunity Notice

SB Small Business

SC Student Collaboration

SCaN Space Communication and Navigation

SDB Small Disadvantaged Business

SDVOSB Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business

SE System Engineer(ing)

SEO Science Enhancement Option

SMD Science Mission Directorate
C-10

SN Space Network

SOW Statement of Work

SPICE Spacecraft, Planet, Instrument, C-matrix, Events

TMC Technical, Management, and Cost

TRL Technical Readiness Level

TT&C Telemetry, Tracking, and Commanding

UARC University Affiliated Research Center

URL Uniform Resource Locator

U.S. United States

U.S.C. United States Code

VOSB Veteran Owned Small Business

WBS Work Breakdown Structure

WOSB Women Owned Small Business
D-1

APPENDIX D

PROGRAM LIBRARY

Acquisition home page URL http://discovery.larc.nasa.gov

Program Library URL http://discovery.larc.nasa.gov/dpl.html

Strategic Documents

NPD 1001.0, The 2006 NASA Strategic Plan

The Science Plan for NASA’s Science Mission Directorate (2007-2016)

New Frontiers in the Solar System: An Integrated Exploration Strategy

Grading NASA's Solar System Exploration Program: A Midterm Review

Program Specific Documents

DISC-PLAN-001B, Discovery Program Plan

Lightweight Radioisotope Heater Unit (LWRHU) Information Summary

NASA’s In-Space Propulsion Technology Project Overview, Near-Term Products, and 

Mission Applicability

In-Space Propulsion Technologies Minimum Demonstration Requirements

NASA’s Evolutionary Xenon Thruster (NEXT) Ion Propulsion System Information Summary

for Discovery Missions

The NEXT Ion Propulsion System for Solar System Exploration

Electric Propulsion Thruster Lifetime Qualification Standard Recommendation

In-Space Propulsion Technology Project Low-Thrust Trajectory Tool Suite

AMBR Engine for Science Missions

Advanced Materials Bi-propellant Rocket (AMBR) Information Summary

Aerocapture Information Summary for Discovery Missions

Aerocapture for Discovery Missions

Advanced Stirling Radioisotope Generator Information Summary

ASRG Functional Description

Electromagnetic Interference Data from ASRG Engineering Unit

Low-Frequency Magnetic Fields Near the ASRG Engineering Unit

Draft Model Contract for Phases B/C/D/E

DISC-RQMT-002B, Discovery Program Safety and Mission Assurance Guidelines and 

Requirements

Guidelines and Criteria for the Phase A Concept Study

Launch Services Information Summary

NASA’s Mission Operations and Communications Services

Policy and Requirements for the Education and Public Outreach Programs of SMD Missions

The Explanatory Guide to the NASA Science Mission Directorate Educational and Public 

Outreach Evaluation Factors

The Explanatory Guide to the NASA Science Mission Directorate Educational Merit 

Evaluation Factors for Student Collaboration Elements
D-2

SMD Mission Extension Paradigm

Sample Return Primer and Handbook

Mars Relay Description for Discovery 2010 Proposals

Electra Mars Proximity-Link Communications and Navigation Payload Description

Electra-Lite Mars Proximity Link Communications and Navigation Payload Description

Table B1: Example Science Traceability Matrix

Table B2: Example Mission Traceability Matrix

Table B3: Total Mission Cost Funding Profile Template

Table B5: Master Equipment List

Draft Procedural Guidelines for Flight Projects: Communications with the Planetary 

Protection Officer

Final Report of the Life Cycle Cost Growth Study for the Discovery and New Frontiers 

Program Office

The following NASA Directives may be found in the NASA Online Directives Information 

System (NODIS) Library (http://nodis.hq.nasa.gov/)

NPD 1001.0, The 2006 NASA Strategic Plan

NPD 1360.2A, Initiation and Development of International Cooperation in Space and 

Aeronautics Programs

NPD 2820.1, NASA Software Policy

NPD 5101.32, Procurement

NPR 5800.1, Grant and Cooperative Agreement Handbook

NPD 7100.10E, Curation of Extraterrestrial Materials

NM 7120-81, NASA Space Flight Program and Project Management Requirements

NPR 7120.8, NASA Research and Technology Program and Project Management 

Requirements

NPR 8020.12C, Planetary Protection Provisions for Robotic Extraterrestrial Missions

NPD 8020.7G, Biological Contamination Control for Outbound and Inbound Planetary 

Spacecraft

NPR 8580.1, Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act and Executive Order 

12114

NPD 8610.7D, NASA Launch Services Risk Mitigation Policy for NASA-Owned or NASASponsored Payloads/Missions

NPR 8705.4, Risk Classification for NASA Payloads

NPR 8715.3, NASA General Safety Program Requirements,

NPR 8715.6, NASA Procedural Requirements for Limiting Orbital Debris

The following NASA technical standards documents may be found in the public access portion 

of the NASA Standards and Technical Assistance Resource Tool (START) 

(http://standards.nasa.gov/)

NASA-HDBK-6022, NASA Handbook for the Microbiological Examination of Space 

Hardware (DRAFT)

NASA-STD-8719.14, NASA Process for Limiting Orbital Debris
D-3

The following NASA technical reports may be found on the NASA Technical Reports Server 

(NTRS) (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp)

NASA/CP-2002-211842, A Draft Test Protocol for Detecting Possible Biohazards in 

Martian Samples Returned to Earth

The Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) may be accessed at 

http://www.acquisition.gov/far/index.html. The following parts of the Federal Acquisition 

Regulations are referenced in this AO.

FAR 15.401, ―Contract Pricing Definitions‖

FAR 15.406-2, ―Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data‖

FAR 33.101, ―Protests Definitions‖

FAR 52.219-8, ―Utilization of Small Business Concerns‖

FAR 52.219-9, ―Small Business Subcontracting Plan‖

FAR 52.222-26, ―Equal Opportunity‖

FAR 52.226-2, ―Historically Black College or University and Minority Institution 

Representation‖

FAR 52.227-11, ―Patent Rights – Ownership by the Contractor‖

FAR 52.227-14, ―Rights in Data – General‖

FAR 52.233-2, ―Service of Protest‖

The NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) may be accessed at 

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/procurement/regs/nfstoc.htm. The following parts of the NASA 

FAR Supplement are referenced in this AO.

NFS 1815.208, ―Submission, modification, revision, and withdrawal of proposals‖

NFS 1835.016-70, ―Foreign participation under broad agency announcements‖

NFS 1852.227-11, ―Patent Rights--Retention by the Contractor‖

NFS 1852.227-70, ―New Technology‖

NFS 1852.227-71, ―Requests for Waiver of Rights to Inventions‖

NFS 1852.233-70, ―Protests to NASA‖

NFS 1872.308, ―Proposals submitted by NASA investigators‖

NFS 1872.403-1, ―Advisory subcommittee evaluation process‖

NFS 1872.705-1, ―Appendix A: General instructions and provisions‖

NASA Procurement Information Circulars (PICs) may be accessed at 

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/procurement/regs/pic.html. The following NASA Procurement 

Information Circulars are referenced in this AO.

PIC 05-15, ―Guidance On Competitive Procedures For Broad Agency Announcements‖

The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) may be accessed at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/. The 

following parts of the Code of Federal Regulations are referenced in this AO.
D-4

14 CFR Part 1216.3, ―Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA)‖

15 CFR Parts 730-774, ―Export Administration Regulations‖

22 CFR Parts120-130, ―International Traffic in Arms Regulations‖

40 CFR Parts 1500-1508, ―Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of 

NEPA‖

The United States Code (USC) may be accessed at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/. The 

following parts of the United States Code are referenced in this AO.

42 USC 4321 et seq., ―National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA)‖

Executive Orders may be accessed at http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/. 

The following Executive Orders are referenced in this AO.

Executive Order 12114, ―Environmental effects abroad of major Federal actions‖

The Managerial Cost Accounting Concepts and Standards for the Federal Government as 

recommended by the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board may be accessed at 

http://www.fasab.gov/pdffiles/sffas-4.pdf.

Step-One Proposal Evaluation Plan Template
E-1

APPENDIX E

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSEQUENT PHASES

This Appendix provides references to documents that govern subsequent phases of mission 

development for selected investigations. These documents may contain requirements on selected 

missions; however they do not place requirements on proposals submitted in response to this 

AO. Proposed investigations should be implementable within the program and project 

management environment that these documents describe. These documents may be found in the 

Program Library.

E.1 Phase A Concept Study Reports and Confirmation of Investigation(s) for Phase B

Guidelines and Criteria for the Phase A Concept Study

E.2 Confirmation of Investigation(s) for Phases Subsequent to Phase B

NM 7120-81, NASA Space Flight Program and Project Management Requirements

DISC-PLAN-001B, Discovery Program Plan

DISC-RQMT-002B, Discovery Program Safety and Mission Assurance Guidelines and 

Requirements
F-1

APPENDIX F

COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST

This Appendix contains the list of items that NASA will check for compliance before releasing a 

proposal for evaluation. All other requirements will be checked during evaluation.

Administrative

1. Proposal received on time Requirement 1

2. Original signature of authorizing official included Requirement B-5

3. Electronic cover page and summary (NSPIRES submission)

received on time

Requirement 2

4. Proposal includes proposal summary information with content 

identical to electronic cover page

Requirement B-7

Requirement B-9

5. Correct number of copies each including a CD Requirement 97

6. Meets page limits Requirement B-4

7. Meets general guidelines (one volume original easy to disassemble, 

maximum 55 lines text/page, maximum 15 characters/inch --

approximately 12 pt font)

Requirement B-1

Requirement B-2

Requirement B-3

8. Meets general requirements for format and completeness Requirement 96

9. Required appendices included; no additional appendices Requirement B-55

10. Budgets are submitted in required formats Requirement B-49

11. All individual team members named on cover page indicate 

commitment through NSPIRES

Requirement 83

12. All export-controlled information has been identified. Requirement 84

Scientific

13. Addresses solicited science research programs Requirement 4

14. Requirements traceable from science to instruments to mission Requirement 5

15. Appropriate data archiving plan Requirement 6

16. Baseline science mission and threshold science mission defined Requirement 9

Technical

17. Complete spaceflight mission (Phases A-F) proposed Requirement 21

18. Team led by a single PI Requirement 39

19. Includes commitment for E/PO program Requirement 55

20. PI-Managed Mission Cost within cost cap Requirement 59

21. Phase A costs within Phase A cost limit Requirement 61

22. Contributions within contribution limit Requirement 72

23. Co-investigator costs in budget Requirement 50

24. Launch readiness date prior to launch deadline Requirement 85

25. Includes table describing non-U.S. participation Requirement 78

26. Includes letters of commitment from funding agencies for non-U.S. 

participating institutions

Requirement 75

27. Includes letters of commitment from all U.S. organizations offering 

contributions

Requirement 81

28. Includes letters of commitment from all major partners Requirement 82
G-1

APPENDIX G

REQUIREMENTS CROSSWALK

This Appendix contains an approximate crosswalk between proposal requirements in the AO and 

proposal requirements in Appendix B. Proposal requirements in Appendix B expand upon the 

proposal requirements in the AO and provide further definition on the structure and content of 

the proposal. Some AO requirements do not require further definition by an Appendix B 

requirement. Not all possible crosswalk relations are shown.

AO 

Reqmt

AO 

Section

AO Reqmt Topic Appendix B 

Reqmt

1 3 Proposal submission

2 3 Electronic submission

3 4.1.3 Mission category and payload risk class

4 5.1.1 Science scope B-15

5 5.1.2 Science traceability B-16

6 5.1.2 Data plan B-21, B-22, B-23

7 5.1.3 Measurement traceability B-17, B-21

8 5.1.3 Instrumentation rationale B-19, B-20, B-26

9 5.1.4 Baseline and threshold missions B-18, B-26

10 5.1.4 Threshold mission B-18

11 5.1.5.1 Planetary Protection (encounters) B-63

12 5.1.5.1 Planetary Protection (samples) B-63

13 5.1.5.2 Sample curation plan B-64

14 5.1.5.2 Sample curation funding B-64

15 5.1.5.3 Sample allocation to foreign partner B-64

16 5.1.5.4 Space-exposed hardware curation plan B-64

17 5.1.5.4 Space-exposed hardware curation funding B-64

18 5.1.6 SEO description B-25

19 5.1.6 SEO separability B-25

20 5.1.6 Extended missions B-25

21 5.2.1 Complete missions B-26, B-27, B-28, 

B-45

22 5.2.1 Mission architecture B-26, B-27, B-28, 

B-29

23 5.2.1 Mission design and operations B-26, B-27, B-28, 

B-30, B-31, B-32, 

B-33, B-34, B-35, 

B-63, B-64, B-65, 

B-66
G-2

AO 

Reqmt

AO 

Section

AO Reqmt Topic Appendix B 

Reqmt

24 5.2.1 Flight systems design B-26, B-27, B-28, 

B-31, B-32, B-33, 

B-34

25 5.2.1 Development approach B-26, B-27, B-28, 

B-32, B-34, B-36, 

B-38, B-39, B-40, 

B-63

26 5.2.2 Management approach B-26, B-27, B-28, 

B-34, B-41, B-42, 

B-43, B-44, B-45

27 5.2.3 New technologies B-28, B-37

28 5.2.4.2 Radioactive material B-28, B-40

29 5.2.4.2 RHU use cost B-28, B-40

30 5.2.4.4 NEPA and Launch Approval Costs

31 5.2.6 Space communications and tracking B-28

32 5.2.6 Standard space comm. service costs B-28

33 5.2.6 Nonstandard space comm. service costs B-28, B-57

34 5.2.6 Use of single 34m antenna for normal 

operations

B-28, B-35

35 5.2.6 Use of Ka-band high data-rate telemetry B-28, B-35

36 5.2.7 Critical events B-28

37 5.2.8 End-of-mission spacecraft disposal B-28, B-64, B-65, 

B-66

38 5.2.9 Deviations from payload requirements B-28

39 5.3.1 Principal Investigator B-28, B-41, B-42, 

B-58

40 5.3.2 Project manager B-28, B-41, B-42, 

B-58

41 5.3.2 PI and PM roles B-28, B-41, B-42

42 5.3.3 Qualifications of individuals B-28, B-41, B-42

43 5.3.3 Qualifications of institutions B-28, B-41, B-42

44 5.3.4 Risk identification B-28, B-43

45 5.3.4 Risk mitigation B-28, B-43

46 5.3.4 Descopes B-28, B-43

47 5.3.5 NASA-PI proposals B-67

48 5.4.1 Science team B-23, B-24, B-58

49 5.4.2 Co-investigator roles B-24, B-58

50 5.4.2 Co-investigator funding B-46, B-49

51 5.4.3 Collaborators B-24, B-58

52 5.5.1 Small business contracting plan B-52

53 5.5.2 E/PO plan
G-3

AO 

Reqmt

AO 

Section

AO Reqmt Topic Appendix B 

Reqmt

54 5.5.2 E/PO funding B-46, B-49

55 5.5.2 E/PO commitment B-53

56 5.5.3 Student collaboration separability B-54

57 5.5.3 Student collaboration funding B-46, B-49

58 5.6.1 Cost tables B-49

59 5.6.1 Cost cap B-46, B-49

60 5.6.1 Limit on pre-Confirmation spending B-46, B-49

61 5.6.2 Phase A cost B-46, B-49

62 5.6.2 Phase A teaming B-41, B-42

63 5.6.3 Cost methodologies B-46, B-47, B-48, 

B-49, B-51

64 5.6.3 Cost control B-46, B-47, B-48, 

B-49, B-51

65 5.6.3 Cost reserves B-46, B-47, B-48, 

B-49, B-51

66 5.6.4 Work Breakdown Structure B-49

67 5.6.5 Master Equipment List B-68, B-69

68 5.6.6 Full-cost accounting B-46

69 5.6.6 NASA contributions B-46, B-49, B-70

70 5.6.6 Applicable accounting standards B-46

71 5.6.7 Contribution identification B-59

72 5.6.7 Contribution value B-60

73 5.6.7 Contribution risk management B-44, B-59

74 5.7.2 Non-US cost plan

75 5.7.2 Non-US letters of commitment B-57

76 5.7.2 Non-US contribution risk management B-44, B-59

77 5.7.2 Non-US contribution detail B-19, B-20, B-26

78 5.7.2 Non-US participation table B-60

79 5.7.3 International agreements B-40

80 5.7.4 Export-control requirements B-61, B-62

81 5.8.1.1 US contribution letters of commitment B-57

82 5.8.1.2 Major partners letters of commitment B-56, B-57

83 5.8.1.3 NSPIRES commitment for team members B-12

84 5.8.2 Export-controlled proposal material B-9

85 5.9.1 Latest launch readiness date B-40

86 5.9.2 Launch vehicle capability B-31

87 5.9.2 Costs for nonstandard launch services B-46, B-49

88 5.9.2 Compatibility with multiple launch vehicles B-31

89 5.9.3 Use of NASA-developed technology B-72

90 5.9.3 Costs for use of NASA-developed technology B-72
G-4

AO 

Reqmt

AO 

Section

AO Reqmt Topic Appendix B 

Reqmt

91 5.9.3 Enabling nature of ASRG B-73

92 5.9.3 Limit on NASA-developed technologies

93 5.9.4 Use of Mars communication assets

94 5.9.4 Inclusion of Mars communications package

95 5.9.4 Interoperability of Mars UHF relay equipment

96 6.2.1 Proposal format B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4, 

B-5, B-6, B-7, B-8, 

B-9, B-13, B-14, 

B-55, B-70, B-71

97 6.2.3 Proposal submission (number of copies) B-5, B-6, B-50, 

B-53, B-69

98 6.2.4 NSPIRES registration B-12

99 6.2.4 Electronic cover page B-10, B-11

100 6.2.4 Electronic submission of cover page B-10, B-11
H-1

APPENDIX H

CERTIFICATIONS

Included for reference only. Submission of the signed proposal including Section V of the 

Proposal Summary Information certifies compliance with these certifications.

Assurance of Compliance with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Regulations Pursuant to Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs

The (Institution or organization on whose behalf this assurance is signed, hereinafter called 

“Applicant.”)

HEREBY AGREES THAT it will comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-

352), Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. 1680 et seq.), Section 504 of 

the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 794), and the Age Discrimination Act of 

1975 (42 U.S.C. 16101 et seq.), and all requirements imposed by or pursuant to the Regulation of 

the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (14 CFR Part 1250) (hereinafter called 

―NASA‖) issued pursuant to these laws, to the end that in accordance with these laws and 

regulations, no person in the United States shall, on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, 

handicapped condition, or age be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be 

otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity for which the Applicant 

receives Federal financial assistance from NASA; and HEREBY GIVES ASSURANCE THAT 

it will immediately take any measure necessary to effectuate this agreement.

If any real property or structure thereon is provided or improved with the aid of Federal financial 

assistance extended to the Applicant by NASA, this assurance shall obligate the Applicant, or in 

the case of any transfer of which the Federal financial assistance is extended or for another 

purpose involving the provision of similar services or benefits. If any personal property is so 

provided, this assurance shall obligate the Applicant for the period during which it retains 

ownership or possession of the property. In all other cases, this assurance shall obligate the 

Applicant for the period during which the Federal financial assistance is extended to it by NASA.

THIS ASSURANCE is given in consideration of and for the purpose of obtaining any and all 

Federal grants, loans, contract, property, discounts or other Federal financial assistance extended 

after the date hereof to the Applicant by NASA, including installment payments after such date 

on account of applications for Federal financial assistance which were approved before such 

date. The Applicant recognizes and agrees that such Federal financial assistance will be extended 

in reliance on the representations and agreements made in this assurance, and that the United 

States shall have the right to seek judicial enforcement of this assurance. This assurance is 

binding on the Applicant, its successors, transferees, and assignees, and the person or persons 

whose signatures appear below are authorized to sign on behalf of the Applicant.
H-2

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:

1. Are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declare ineligible, or 

voluntarily excluded from covered transactions by any Federal department or agency;

2. 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;

3. 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;

4. 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)

1. 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.

2. 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.
H-3

Certification Regarding Lobbying

As required by S 1352 Title 31 of the U.S. Code for persons entering into a grant over $100,000, 

the applicant certifies that:

1. No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid by or on behalf of the 

undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or 

employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, in connection with making of any 

Federal grant, the entering into of any cooperative, and the extension, continuation, 

renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal grant;

2. If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to 

any person for influencing or attempting an officer or employee of any agency, 

Member of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with 

this Federal grant, the undersigned shall complete Standard Form -- LLL, ―Disclosure 

Form to Report Lobbying,‖ in accordance with its instructions.

3. The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in the 

award documents for all subawards at all tiers (including subgrants, contracts under 

grants, and subcontracts), and that all subrecipients shall certify and disclose 

accordingly.

This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this 

transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making 

or entering into this transaction imposed by S1352, Title 31, U.S. Code. Any person who fails to 

file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not 

more than $100,000 for each such failure.