National Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS)

Request for Information (RFI)

for
Conical-Scanning Microwave Sensor

The NPOESS program received certification of its requirements under the Nunn-McCurdy
process. The NPOESS Integrated Program Office (IPO) has been directed to develop a less complex and
less expensive conical scanning microwave sensor. The IPO threshold requirements are to maintain data
continuity with legacy systems such as the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) while
maintaining a growth potential to achieve the goals of the Integrated Operational Requirements Document
(lORD).

In the interest of assessing the viability of an industry-procured first flight unit sensor with two
production unit options, the IPO is requesting information on industry's interest and recommendations for
mitigating perceived risks. The following description addresses basic passive radiometer sensor concept(s),
schedule, and risks that should be mitigated and provides a series of questions that will help the IPO
develop a successful acquisition strategy for the new NPOESS microwave sensor.

Questions or concerns regarding this request for information shall be sent, in writing to the
Contracting Officer, via email Jetf.dedrick(dnoaa.gov, or via letter to NPOESS Integrated Program Office,
Attn: Mr. Jeff Dedrick, 8455 Colesville Road, Suite 1450, Silver Spring, MD 20910. This request for
information is for planning purposes only and shall not be construed as a Request for Inquiry (RFI), request
for proposal (RFP) or as an obligation on the part of the Government to acquire any products and/or
services. No entitlement to payment of direct or indirect costs or charges by the Government will arise as a
result submission of responses to this request for information and the Government's use of such
information. Respondents of this request for information may be requested to provide additional
information/details/demonstrations based on their initial submittals. Responses to this request for
information are to be submitted and addressed to the Contracting Officer, at the referenced e-mail address,
no later than 31 Dec 2006. Responses should include the name and telephone number of a point of contact
having authority and knowledge to discuss responses with Government representatives.

Development Description
The sensor development will be cost and schedule constrained. The anticipated procurement will
be for one engineering development unit (EDU), three electrically equivalent simulators, and one flight unit
with options for two production units. If a sensor procurement is initiated, the priorities for a related future
sensor procurement will include but is not limited to cost control and realism, schedule control and realism,
followed by technical performance beyond threshold requirements. To address the issues the IPO has
experienced on other sensor developments, the IPO wishes to reduce requirements interpretation issues and
separate the algorithm development from the sensor hardware development. This is expected to allow the
IPO to better control the alignment of performance priorities for this system.

The sensor procurement would be accomplished through a sensor specification requiring technical
performance from the hardware. The government will control the algorithm development and subsequent
environmental data record (EDR) performance of the system. The sensor and algorithm system would be a
government furnished equipment (GFE) delivery to the NPOESS prime contractor, Northrop Grumman
Space Technology (NGST) for integration into the NPOESS system. As such, the sensor developer must
consider any implications with the required NGST and IPO teaming environment. Sharing of data will be
necessary to fully integrate the sensor onto NPOESS and develop the algorithms. Consideration should be
given to the post-delivery support required to integrate the instrument onto the NPOESS spacecraft.
 There are two conceptual industry procurement strategies being considered. One would be such
that the all sensors (flight units 1,2 and 3) developed are identical, where the sensor capabilities are defined
from the start based on first flight unit affordability. The initial sensor capabilities would not be different
from the final delivered sensor. The second option would build a first flight unit sensor that meets only
threshold performance, but has planned performance improvements for each subsequent sensor build (flight
units 2 & 3), such as adding polarimetric channels, then sounding channels.

Schedule
The phasing of the key milestones, such as Preliminary Design Review (PDR) and Critical Design
Review (CDR), for this acquisition should be discussed in any response to this RFI. The current constraints
are an Authority to Proceed (ATP) on October 1, 2008 with delivery of the instrument to the government
on or before January 2014.

Performance Prioritization

1) Imagery capabilities derived from the following core microwave channels with dual polarization:
lO-GHz, 18-GHz, 23-GHz, 37-GHz and 89-GHz

2) Wind Speed capability derived from the following microwave channels: dual polarization of
roughly 10-GHz, 18-GHz, 23-GHz, 37-GHz and 89-GHz

3) Soil Moisture capability derived from the following microwave channels: dual polarization of
roughly 10-GHz, 18-GHz, 23-GHz, 37-GHz and 89-GHz; Considerations for 6-GHz (or any C-
band channel with a center frequency between 4-GHz and 8-GHz) and 10-GHz channels with
radio frequency interference mitigation techniques

4) Wind Direction capability derived from the following microwave channels: dual polarization of
roughly lO-GHz, 18-GHz, 23-GHz, 37-GHz and 89-GHz; polarimetry on roughly 10-GHz
(plus/minus), 18-GHz (plus/minus/left/right), 37-GHz (plus/minus); bandwidths of 200-MHz to
1.5-GHz (TBD)

5) Atmospheric profiles of temperature (temperature soundings) capabilities derived from the

following microwave channels: based primarily on a suite of four to six single polarization
channels spanning the range of 50-GHz to 59-GHz with bandwidths from 200-MHz to I-GHz
(TBD)

6) Atmospheric profiles of moisture (moisture soundings) capabilities derived from the following
microwave channels: traditional 150-GHz to 183-GHz channel suites with bandwidths from 200-
MHz to I-GHz (TBD)

Sensor Description
Sensor A, Baseline

Sensor A is a passive microwave sensor capable of meeting the Imagery, Wind Speed and Soil
Moisture parameters described above. It must be accommodated on the NPOESS spacecraft and meet all
NPOESS environmental requirements. It should have a ~ 1.2 meter main reflector with reasonable
horizontal spatial resolutions associated with a reflector of this size. Soil moisture measurements are
required through only minimal vegetation as achievable with lO-GHz channels. Wind direction is not
required for this baseline sensor concept. Additionally, if the IPO pursues performance growth initiatives
to achieve the lORD threshold performance, we expect that the provider would have a preferred approach.
What approach would you recommend? What opportunities and risks does that approach have and how
would the provider recommend taking advantage of the approach's opportunities or mitigating any risks?

Sensor A, Option A-I

Sensor A, Option A-I should have the capabilities described under Sensor A, Baseline, with the
following additions. Wind direction capability should be considered as a required capability for either
spiral technology insertion or as a baseline capability. Whether it is more advantageous to incorporate a
wind direction capability on the first flight unit or use a product improvement on the first production unit
should be addressed in any response. Additionally, if the IPO pursues performance growth initiatives to
achieve the lORD threshold performance, we expect that the provider would have a preferred approach.
What approach would you recommend? What opportunities and risks does that approach have and how
would the provider recommend taking advantage of the approach's opportunities or mitigating any risks?

Sensor A, Option A-2

Sensor A, Option A-2 should have the capabilities described under Sensor A-I with the following
additions. A sounding capability is required; however, the number of channels needed to accomplish the
sounding and the maximum altitude are not defined. Option A-2 should recommend a sounding capability;
whether to use spiral technology insertions or baseline the capability; level and type of added risks
associated with this option. Additionally, if the IPO pursues performance growth initiatives to achieve the
lORD threshold performance, we expect that the provider would have a preferred approach. What
approach would you recommend? What opportunities and risks does that approach have and how would
the provider recommend taking advantage of the approach's opportunities or mitigating any risks?

Sensor B, Baseline

Sensor B is a passive microwave sensor capable of meeting the Imagery, Wind Speed and Soil
Moisture parameters described above. It must be accommodated on the NPOESS spacecraft and meet all
NPOESS environmental requirements. It should have a -1.8 meter main reflector with reasonable
horizontal spatial resolutions associated with a reflector of this size. Soil moisture measurements are
required through only minimal vegetation as achievable with lO-GHz channels; however, a 6-GHz
capability should be considered to take advantage of the increased spatial resolution achievable with Sensor
B's larger reflector compared to Sensor A. The 6-GHz (or any C-band channels with a center frequency
between 4-GHz and 8-GHz) capability should be evaluated against cost and schedule risk and include a
brief description of mitigating any radio frequency interference. Wind direction is not required for this
sensor concept. Additionally, if the IPO pursues performance growth initiatives to achieve the lORD
threshold performance, we expect that the provider would have a preferred approach. What approach
would you recommend? What opportunities and risks does that approach have and how would the provider
recommend taking advantage of the approach's opportunities or mitigating any risks?

Sensor B, Option B-1

Sensor B, Option B-1 should have the capabilities described under Sensor B, Baseline, with the
following additions. Wind direction capability should be considered as a required capability for either
spiral technology insertion or as a baseline capability. Whether it is more advantageous to incorporate a
wind direction capability on the first flight unit or use a product improvement on the first production unit
should be addressed in any response. Additionally, if the IPO pursues performance growth initiatives to
achieve the lORD threshold performance, we expect that the provider would have a preferred approach.
What approach would you recommend? What opportunities and risks does that approach have and how
would the provider recommend taking advantage of the approach's opportunities or mitigating any risks?
 Sensor B, Option B-2

Sensor B, Option B-2 should have the capabilities described under Sensor B-1 with the following
additions. A sounding capability is required; however, the number of channels needed to accomplish the
sounding and the maximum altitude are not defined. Option B-2, should recommend a sounding capability;
whether to use spiral technology insertions or baseline the capability; level and type of added risks
associated with this option. Additionally, if the IPO pursues performance growth initiatives to achieve the
lORD threshold performance, we expect that the provider would have a preferred approach. What
approach would you recommend? What opportunities and risks does that approach have and how would
the provider recommend taking advantage of the approach's opportunities or mitigating any risks?

Additional Information Requested

The IPO has discussed several risks associated with the microwave sensor development. Priorities
for the sensor development will be in order of priority (1) Cost, (2) Schedule, and (3) performance above a
minimum threshold.

1) To mitigate the cost and schedule risks, what fiscal year funding profile would you recommend for
those sensor options that you responded to assuming the schedule constraints given in this
document? What is a reasonable target cost for the sensors described in the Sensor Description
Section in FY07 $ using a standard annual 5% escalation rate (show F1, F2, F3 costs separately)?

2) In your opinion, what contract structure (CPIF, FFP+I etc.) would provide the best management
and incentive structure to ensure that costs and schedule are controlled during the sensor
development? What would you recommend as the most important aspect of the development to
address in order to safeguard against cost growth? Schedule impacts?

3) We are considering providing a sensor-based specification for the sensor development. The sensor
would then be GFE to NGST with the science algorithms development led by the IPO. This
represents a departure from the NPOESS model where a specification containing EDR
requirements is provided and the contractor team is responsible for providing a completed sensor,
simulators, fixtures, tooling and science algorithms. In this new sensor specification scenario,
what concerns do you have with respect to requirements understanding, interpretation, or stability
that would be different than the EDR-based scenario? What is the best approach to develop the
Temperature Data Record (TDR) and Sensor Data Record (SDR) algorithms? Do you prefer an
EDR or sensor-based specification as the contractual sensor's A-level specification and why?

4) How do you view the technical maturity of each of the sensors outlined in Sensor Description
Section? How large of a role does each of the following play in determining the total program
cost (development and production) for each sensor class outlined above: 1) technology
development, 2) system engineering, 3) subcontracts and management of subcontracts?

5) Provide suggestions for mitigating the subcontract management risks associated with this type of
sensor development.

6) How do you view the major program risks, and what specific concerns do you have, regarding the
interface between organizations within the NPOESS structure regarding the development of a GFE
sensor? For example, the sensor developer, IPO, NGST, Raytheon (Integrated Data Processing
System). Provide any recommendations regarding the level of oversight. and roles of each
organization that may not currently be practiced.
 7) How would you incorporate a 6-GHz capability on Sensor A? Is Sensor A too small to include a
6-GHz capability? Why?

8) Would you recommend a different reflector size due to cost, schedule or technical risks?

9) Provide your assessment of the risks you anticipate with spiral technology insertions to achieve
lORD capabilities (skill retention, etc ... )'1 How can those risks be mitigated? Would spiral
insertions degrade previously existing capabilities on the sensor in your opinion?

10) With your understanding of the NPOESS needs, would you recommend a different sensor concept
than those that we have stated? What is your recommended sensor concept? Why do you
recommend this concept (what risks are mitigated, does it play to your expertise, etc ... )'1

II) What would you do to make this program a success? This is a broad question that we hope will
generate some diligent thought based on past experiences, both successful and unsuccessful.
Consider all aspects of the program (types of reviews, metrics, strategies, level of oversight,
partnerships, contract mechanisms, processes, etc ... ) and provide your recommendations.

12) What would you like to see the government do to make this program a success? This is a broad
question that we hope will generate some diligent thought based on past experiences, both
successful and unsuccessful to make recommendations to the government on how it can make
changes that will help ensure program success. Consider all aspects of the program and provide
your recommendations.

NPOESS IPO Contact Information

NPOESS Contracting Officer

Mr. .Jeff Dedrick

Phone: (301) 713-4754
Fax: (301) 427-2064
.Jeffdedrick(i/moaa.gov