A -- Ultra Light Dropsonde System

This is amendment 5 to the RFP. Its purpose is to post RFP questions received from potential offerors and the Government's responses. Note that the Government did receive additional questions that are not being posted. These questions either identified the offeror or may have asked for clarification about the size of company that can respond to this full and open competition. These questions received direct responses. It was determined that the responses did not provide the offerors with any competitive advantage. Likewise, offerors not receiving these responses will not be at a competitive disadvantage. Q1. In reference to Section H.6 1352.237-73 KEY PERSONNEL (MARCH 2000) of the RFP, the Contractor shall assign to this contract the following Key Personnel: TO BE DETERMINED. While we have several engineers who may be assigned to this effort if awarded, as the work will occur at some future TBD point, knowing precisely which engineer will handle the work is impossible. It is not clear from the RFP what the ramifications are if we later remove personnel listed from the effort. We understand we need to notify the government, but what are the government's legal choices in this case, for example can NOAA cancel the R&D contract if it wishes? (Practical examples include a key employee leaves the company or they get assigned to work on a different internal R&D program). Please advise why this list of key personnel is necessary and how it gets weighted on the overall score. Also, related question: Are time sheets required as backup to prove who-worked-on-what-when? In audits for CPFF type contract instruments this is often required. A1. The purpose of this clause is to make sure that the main or key personnel assigned to this contract have the capability to perform. The Government wants to be notified if a key individual is replaced so they know who is working on the contract. If a change in personnel needs to be made during contract performance, the Government wants to be assured that a suitable substitute key person is provided. If an inadequate replacement is named and no acceptable replacement can be identified, the Government may be justified in terminating the contract. The evaluation criteria does not include a separate Key Personnel factor. However, the evaluation of personnel will be included in the review of FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL QUALIFICATIONS and FACTOR 3: CORPORATE EXPERIENCE. The SEB will review the capabilities of the key individuals proposed in terms of how well the proposal demonstrates their abilities to perform the functions listed in "a" through "j" of Section L.2 PROPOSAL PREPARATION. In paragraph 1 of Section M.1 EVALUATION CRITERIA of the RFP, it lists the evaluation criteria and states that the criteria are listed in order of importance. "Technical Qualifications toward meeting or exceeding the UDS Specifications" is listed first and is therefore considered the most important. Scores for this factor will be more heavily weighted than other factors. The Government has determined that contract performance requires identification of contractor key personnel. Therefore, this DOC local clause has been included in the contract. Time sheets are not required as backup. The resulting contract type will be firm fixed price. Also note that if key personnel change during the proposal period, offerors need to inform the Government and obtain approval of the replacement. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The second question references 52.219-8 UTILIZATION OF SMALL BUSINESS CONCERNS (MAY 2004) and M.1 1352.215-76 EVALUATION CRITERIA (MARCH 2000) of the RFP. Q2: We understand this is not a "small business set aside" contract as the government previously conducted limited research and determined that there was not more than one small business concern capable of meeting the needs of the RFP. However, are small business concerns given any advantage to larger business bidders on the RFP? If "no", how does NOAA reconcile the inclusion of this clause in the contract (that is, why is it included)? Further, if "yes", what is the additional weighting afforded to being a small business, thus allowing NOAA to help meet its agency obligations under clause 52.219? 1352.215-76 makes no mention of this and we are hypothesizing OMB requires this clause in all contracts, but it seems to be contradictory. A2: No advantage will be given to small businesses within this full-and-open competitive environment. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The third question references VOLUME II COST/PRICE PROPOSAL: (B) Prices. The Government expects that this contract will be awarded based upon adequate price competition. The Government has $200,000 budgeted for this requirement. However, in order for the Government to determine that prices are fair and reasonable, Offerors shall provide a cost breakdown of labor and materials that supports your fixed price. Q3: "Is this a cost ceiling of $200,000? For the development scope described this seems low. For example, our firm just completed a two year $375K NOAA Phase I/II effort that involved the R&D of only a lightweight dropsonde (what the RFP calls the UDS) and receiver (what the RFP calls the ORDP). And that effort was also heavily subsidized internally, so the true cost was more like $500K. We do feel that a release mechanism alone is feasible for $200K, but can you comment on how much additional funds would be available beyond $200K, or what the weighting is on bid cost (beyond simply 'best value' guidelines?)" A3: The Government's current budget is $200,000. Any proposal over the $200,000 is made at the offeror's risk. Remember that this is a best value decision. Though the Government budget is small for this effort, the delivery of a successful prototype will entice the Government to obtain a budget for deployment of the Ultra-light dropsonde system in the field. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Q4: Related question to Q3: "Are bidders considered unresponsive if they propose more than $200K?" A4: See answer provided above in "A3." ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Q5: It is very helpful to know a superpressure balloon will be used for testing, this makes practical sense. Can we assume that the balloon will be used for fair weather soundings only? Obviously we cannot use a balloon drifting to test in a hurricane, as the winds will be divergent, even at 80K ft (re: Alan G., NOAA Air Operations Center, and Terry Hock, NCAR, personal communications.) A5: Balloon flights for testing will be conducted in eastern Colorado during daylight hours with early morning launches. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Q6: Will a parachute be used to control decent from the super pressure balloon? If so, will it be similar to the patented parachutes used by existing dropsondes and will the government provide those parachutes? (Reason: the four sided parachutes are protected by patent and are only available from the vendor that licensed them from NCAR ... and to the best of our knowledge this vendor does not sell them separately from their dropsonde, which they also licensed from NCAR). A6: The descent phase of testing using balloons will employee standard parachutes. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Q7: In the response it is stated that the dropsonde release mechanism will not be a component of the effort. Will the government be developing this technology on its own or will the R&D of that element potentially become a separate R&D contract? If so, how will dropsonde flight testing be conducted and the contract completed, if the government-developed dropsonde release mechanism is not ready on time? If, as the RFP asserts, both chamber testing and flight testing will be required, it seems that the R&D of the release mechanism ought to be tied together contractually, no? Would the government consider separating flight testing into a separate effort? A7: Government plans concerning the ?dropsonde release mechanism? are not firm at this time. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Q8: In response to sensor accuracy questions, we see the statement "the government expects the RFP specs to be met." Unfortunately, what is desired for sensor accuracy in the RFP and what is practical to build with sensor components that can be procured at reasonable cost, that work over the wide 200F temperature dynamic range are divergent. We understand that an on board pressure measurement in a hurricane will be needed (as opposed to GPS attitude-derived pressure). However, we respectfully ask the government to include explicit language in the contract that these specification are a "best effort" instead of "must be met". (Reason: we own a high altitude simulation chamber, and measuring pressure to 0.1hPa over a -100 to +100F range is currently beyond the current state-of-the-art with disposable/expendable sensor technology.) We suggest that the NOAA hurricane forecast center end customers be asked to qualify their sensitivity/resolution parameter requirements with respect to model accuracy, as we suspect there are not hard drivers for these PTU specifications. A8: As stated earlier, the Government expects the requirements of the RFP to be met. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Q9: The RFP states that we need a 90% data success rate and mentions that we cannot have more than 3% contiguous drop outs in data packets. So if we lost GPS satellite lock for a 3 second period out of the entire flight and stopped sending position data, the whole flight will fail given this criteria. If we had data every five seconds is that sufficient? Can you explain why the contiguous drop out spec is a requirement and why these particular limits were chosen? Further, do all 12 prototypes need to pass the same requirement? In our experience, GPS signal propagation is somewhat indeterminate and somewhat beyond one's control at times due to space weather effects, etc. Suppose in a 10 second interval where we have the first two seconds successful, followed by five dead seconds, followed by three seconds of data ... can you elaborate more about the time granularity. A9: If your design will not provide reliable tracking, your proposal should indicate the frequency of this occurrence and provide details of how your processing system will deal with it. The data requirement is given in the RFP. The ?drop out spec? is a requirement to insure the integrity of the collected data set and the limits were chosen for the convenience of the government. All of the equipment to be delivered has to meet the applicable requirements of the RFP. The RFP specifications will provide the ?time granularity? desired by the Government. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Q10: In order to meet the stringent PTU sensor specifications we need to know the exact technology the referees will use for referee environmental sensors, both in the test chambers and on the superpressure balloon. Will the environmental sensors pressure/humidity/temperature providing truth data for the superpressure balloon during flight testing use aspirated air temperature sensors such as PRTs? Will the humidity data truth sensor be a chilled mirror hygrometer? Will the pressure data truth sensor be a heated compensated aneroid barometer? etc. We need to understand the time constants and other factors such that we can be assured that our disposable PTU sensors will agree with the data truth sensors on the balloon package within spec. A10: The sensor set used for testing will be based on Vaisala RS-80 radiosonde sensor technology with a digital data logger attached. Prior to testing, the sensor set will be compared with laboratory standard measurements to determine bias so that this bias can be adjusted for in the testing. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Q11: We asked about whether the temperature specification will need to be met if our dropsonde thermistor sensor becomes wet and experiences evaporative cooling. The government said essentially, "yes, under conditions that it would normally experience." This is a major issue and a known problem with existing RD-93 dropsondes which have a negative bias when wet, of more than a degree or so. Because this is far in excess of the RFP's target temperature spec, we wonder how this can be achieved with present technology? This is a physics problem. Certainly, a dropsonde will get wet in a hurricane, but how can this be dealt with in meeting the spec? Would the government be willing to adjust the spec to be under "dry/non-condensing" environment? A11: The details of the way that you propose to provide the measured values of temperature should be covered in the proposal. The Government will consider the effectiveness of your approach when the proposals are evaluated. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Q12: We asked if Cyclical Redundancy Check (CRC) was suitable to provide data link integrity, and the government replied CRC was generally not sufficient to protect the integrity of a data link. We recognize that with one-way data transfers that there is no way to do "error detection and correction" but only "error detection". Error correction requires two-way protocols (as in V.32/V32bis/V42) and drives us to putting a receiver on the dropsondes. We would like to rephrase the question as: "if we send data between the sonde and the airborne receiver as one-way, CRC tagged data, such that single or multi bit errors are detected and the data ignored (resulting in a single packet data loss), so that only good packets made it through, and enough good packets made it so we meet the target data telemetry threshold", would that be considered responsive? In other words, if we have error detection but not error correction between the sonde and receiver but have both error detection and correction between the receiver and the ground station (that is, the Iridium satcom data link between the airborne receiver and the ground station detection and correction), is that OK? A12: All technical aspects of the communications link ?between the sonde and the airborne receiver? are the prerogative of the proposer. The Government interest is in the data packets received at the ground station. If those data packets meet the applicable specifications given in the RFP, the proposed design will be considered acceptable. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Q13: The government has stated it expects that "all sensor performance targets need to be met." If we are unable to meet one or more target sensor specs during testing, what will be the financial ramifications? For example, if we cannot meet, say, the 0.3mbar pressure spec over the entire a +/-100F temp span, can the government withhold payment on the contract, and if so, what amount? Will there be progress payments? A13: The Government expects all performance targets to be met. Offerors should not propose if they cannot meet all the requirements. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Q14: Would a NCAR/UCAR subcontract be allowed under the contract (as they are a FRDC organization)? The team there has a wealth of operational experience, especially with balloon-borne deployments. But NCAR is often not allowed to participate in certain types of procurement due to their non-profit status. A14: Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDC) are generally prohibited from participating in competitive acquisitions. Any offeror that teams with an FFRDC will be reviewed for its lawfulness. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Q15: Design rights: Would the government elaborate as to why the as built design must be turned over at the end of the contract, given the maximum dollar amount is only $200,000? What is the long term advantage to the contractor in being able to supply these commercially? A15: The Government requires the as-built design at the end of the contract in order to have a complete and current design at contract completion. The Government also requires this design if it should desire to make modifications in the future or for some reason, the design owner is unable to compete on future requirements. The advantage to an offeror, if any, is one for each offeror to determine on its own. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Q16: (re: progress payments), the government has stated that 25% would be paid upon design review, 50% upon user training, and the final 25% upon final test acceptance. As most of the work is in getting the sonde design to actually pass the rather stringent sensor specifications, the user training and testing will be lumped together near the end of the whole effort. Essentially, training cannot take place prior to the ability to deliver a working test item. This means that roughly 75% of the funds would be withheld until the point where the testing occurs, and only then assuming tests occur successfully. Assuming a one year effort, this means the government will withhold 75% of funds for 9 or 10 months. Certainly, this payment schedule is an advantage for the government as it delays expenditures until the end. But businesses must pay vendors within 30 days and typically make payroll every two weeks. Why can't several additional technical milestones be established such that progress payments are metered out on a monthly basis, rather than bunched up at the end? Related to the question below, this progress payment schedule appears to place a significant financial burden on the smaller contractors, favoring larger business entities that typically have highly diversified and more established business lines, over smaller businesses. A16: Payments will be made in accordance with Section G.4 entitled, INTERIM PAYMENTS, in the solicitation. A shorter payment schedule may be available if a small business wins the award. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Q17: (re: small business set-aside), the government has stated based on lack of response from a past RFI last winter, there appeared to be not more than one small business that could potentially fill the need. We note that particular RFI was for a much more technically aggressive non-GPS (radio direction finding), 20g dropsonde with a $20 target cost, which, in our opinion was vastly different than the current RFP goals. Hence, the current RFP isn't a small business set-aside, yet we have identified three established small business manufacturers in the US that have the capability to perform this work: Yankee Environmental Systems, Intermet and Space Data. Moreover, both Yankee and Intermet have had recent major contracts with NOAA. We ask why this RFP is not made a small business set-aside, based on the fact that there is more than one potential vendor? We recognize that the agency wants as many bidders as possible. However, given the clear Congressional mandates that have been established for many years to help small/disadvantaged businesses, we respectfully submit that this RFP ought to be a small business set-aside, rather than an open procurement. A17: As required by the Federal Acquisition Regulation, the Government conducted market research to determine the procurement strategy (set-aside or full-and-open competition.) A Request for Information was posted on the Federal Business Opportunities website. The Government reviewed the qualification statements received and determined that not more than one small business had the capability to perform. Accordingly, the decision was made to use a full-and-open competition strategy. As requested in the RFI, vendors used their qualification statements to provide information to the Government about market dropsonde size availability. The Government?s need for as small a dropsonde as possible to meet its requirement has not changed. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Q18: Frangibility requirement: over the years, the FAA has developed a set of standards for frangibility to keep air travel as safe as possible. Even if we could ignore device cost and meet the stated accuracy via (for instance) a chilled mirror hygrometer for dew point, a three thermistor sensor for temperature and a temperature-compensated aneroid barometer for pressure, the end device will be quite physically large and bulky. Yet if we must meet frangibility and accuracy, the device will necessarily become large, (mitigating the 'ultralight' in UDS.) Given that the dropsondes are most commonly deployed over open ocean areas having minimal air traffic (due to the hurricane), will the government waive all frangibility requirements, or will we be required to meet those established guidelines? A18: There is no frangibility requirement in the RFP. The test flights using helium balloons will be conducted under a FAA waiver where the frangibility of the unit under test will not be an issue. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Q19: Target cost vs. sensor specs: Tied into the above set of sensor questions, does NOAA intend this to be a "performance at any cost" design or is low unit cost a major requirement? Thus far into the questioning period, it appears that cost is not an object, while sensor accuracy certainly is the goal. The current RD-93 made by Vaisala does not meet the accuracy specs but cost $700 each in quantity, and it appears that we may be headed towards a $5000 dropsonde. Would NOAA please comment on the expected tradeoff between end unit acquisition cost and expected/desired sensor performance? We are keenly aware of market pressures and want to be sure the design is as affordable as possible. A19: The requirements for this acquisition are given in the RFP. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Q20: With regard to telemetry range, is there a specification for range between the actual dropsondes and the unmanned aerial vehicle? It?s my understanding from reading the solicitation that the 300 km specification is for effective range between the unmanned aerial vehicle and the ground/receiving station. A20: There is no specification for range between the actual dropsonde and the aerial vehicle from which it was deployed. It is understood that the dropsonde would take data from release height down to the surface. The understanding that the 300 km specification is for effective range between the aerial vehicle and the ground station is correct.