Call 001 Development and Application of a Heliospheric Imaging Mission | Apply Online

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1) What is Call 001 about?

Call 001 is titled "Development and Application of a Heliospheric Imaging Mission." It is a research solicitation from the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL), Space Vehicles Directorate, Battlespace Environment Division, under Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) RV 10 01 (originally posted November 10, 2009). The call focuses on defining and advancing a next-generation heliospheric imaging capability and associated mission concepts to better observe and understand space weather conditions in the inner heliosphere (between the Sun and Earth).

2) What problem is the Air Force trying to solve with this call?

The motivation is to improve Air Force Space Command "environmental effects characterization" so the Air Force can maintain operational awareness of geophysical and space phenomena that can degrade system performance, support anomaly resolution, and protect mission-critical space-sensitive operations. The work is oriented toward practical, operationally useful improvements in detecting, tracking, and forecasting solar disturbances that affect Earth.

3) Is this solicitation focused on basic science or operational needs?

The call emphasizes operational needs. While it involves scientific and technical analysis, it is not framed as basic science for its own sake. It is aimed at improving the ability to detect, track, and forecast solar disturbances (including key heliospheric features) in ways that support operational decision-making.

4) What space weather phenomena are specifically mentioned?

The call specifically mentions earlier detection and more reliable tracking of coronal mass ejections (CMEs), corotating interaction regions/structures, and other heliospheric features that can drive space weather impacts at Earth.

5) What experience does AFRL already have with heliospheric imaging?

The announcement states the Air Force has experience with two different heliospheric imaging configurations currently on orbit: scanning imagers in low Earth orbit and a pair of staring instruments in solar orbit. Both approaches have demonstrated strengths and limitations, and AFRL indicates neither is an ideal fit for future operational needs.

6) What are the two main parts of the work AFRL is requesting?

The requested work is framed in two major parts:

• Assessment of current in-orbit heliospheric imagers: Identify relevant features, performance drivers, and failure modes, then translate lessons learned into requirements and design guidance for a next-generation system.
• Mission design trade space exploration: Analyze a notional mission design trade space that links instrument capability choices to mission performance outcomes, producing credible mission concept scenarios and design recommendations.

7) What kinds of mission and instrument trades does AFRL want analyzed?

The call explicitly lists trade areas such as instrument basic capabilities, orbit inclination and altitude, data cadence, concept of operations (conops), field of view, expected resolution, and how these choices affect mission performance outcomes.

8) What outputs or results is AFRL looking for?

The intended output is a set of credible mission concept scenarios and design recommendations that help AFRL decide what a "next generation" heliospheric imaging capability should look like and how it should be flown and operated to achieve practical improvements over existing systems.

9) What AFRL program does this call support?

This effort supports the AFRL Solar and Solar Disturbance Prediction program within the Space Vehicles Directorate. It is described as Advanced Technology Development (6.3).

10) Does the call mention any existing Air Force heliospheric imager program?

Yes. The government references its operation of the first heliospheric imager, SMEI, and emphasizes integrating theory, models, and data to improve forecasting.

11) How important is modeling and forecasting integration in this effort?

The call context implies proposals should connect hardware and mission design choices to downstream uses such as theory, models, data assimilation, and operational forecasting timelines, rather than treating the imager as a standalone sensor.

12) How much funding is anticipated for this call?

The opportunity anticipates approximately $70,000 in total funding for the call (FY10).

13) What is the expected period of performance?

The expected period of performance is 12 months, structured as roughly 9 months of technical work followed by 3 months for final report preparation.

14) What start date and award date are mentioned?

The call lists a desired start date of June 2, 2010 and also lists an anticipated award date of June 2, 2010.

15) How many awards does AFRL expect to make?

AFRL anticipated making one award (one support contract) but reserved the right to make multiple awards or no award depending on proposal quality and government needs.

16) What contract type is anticipated?

The anticipated contract type is Fixed Price, although AFRL states it may choose the instrument best suited to the research proposed.

17) What deliverables are required?

Deliverables are report-driven and include a semi-annual progress report and a final report.

18) Is the effort classified?

No. The call is explicitly described as unclassified.

19) Do ITAR/export-control restrictions apply?

The call explicitly notes that ITAR/export-control restrictions do not apply to this effort.

20) Is a DD Form 2345 required?

No. The call explicitly states that a DD Form 2345 is not required.

21) Are foreign contractors allowed to propose?

Yes. The call is open to foreign contractors.

22) Will the government provide government-furnished property (GFP)?

No. The government does not plan to provide government-furnished property.

23) Will base support be provided?

No. The government will not provide base support.

24) Does the call raise any proprietary information or access issues?

Yes. The call notes that administrative access to proprietary information may be required, including potential access by non-government service contractors operating under organizational conflict of interest protections. Offerors must sign a consent form addressing this proprietary data access arrangement and should disclose any anticipated contracts that could involve such access.

25) What proposal format is required?

Submissions had to follow the Det 8 AFRL/PK proposal instructions (dated February 20, 2010) and include separate Management, Technical, and Cost proposals.

26) How many copies and what electronic format were requested?

The announcement requested two copies plus an original, along with an electronic copy on CD. It also required an Excel-compatible cost file (Excel 2007 or earlier).

27) How detailed did the cost proposal need to be?

Cost proposals were expected to be detailed and audit-ready, including: full cost element summaries; direct labor categories with rate bases and escalation methods; indirect rates and allocation bases; subcontractor cost breakdowns; travel and material details; other direct costs; any facilities capital cost of money (if applicable); and fee.

28) Are there specific DFARS-related cost/teaming requirements?

Yes. The instructions flag compliance with DFARS requirements aimed at identifying and excluding excessive pass-through charges. Offerors were required to clearly state what percentage of work will be performed by the prime versus each subcontractor, with extra justification if subcontracting exceeds 70 percent of total work.

29) Is there any tax-related note offerors should consider?

Yes. A New Mexico Gross Receipts Tax note is included because the contracting activity is at Kirtland AFB, indicating offerors were expected to consider state tax applicability where relevant.

30) Who is the technical point of contact?

The technical point of contact is Janet C. Johnston at Det 8 AFRL/RVBXS (Hanscom AFB).

31) Who are the contracting points of contact?

Contracting contacts include Ellen Foster (Contract Specialist) and Jean A. Barnes (Contracting Officer) at Det 8 AFRL/RVKB (Kirtland AFB).

32) Were offerors asked to notify the government if they intended to propose?

Yes. Offerors were asked, as a courtesy, to notify the contracting point of contact if they intended to propose, but that notice was not binding.

33) Which broader solicitation rules apply to this call?

The call emphasizes that baseline BAA RV 10 01 rules apply unless explicitly amended.

34) Where should offerors look for amendments or deadline changes?

Interested parties were told to monitor FedBizOpps (noted as SAM.gov in modern terms) and Grants.gov for amendments, including possible deadline extensions.

35) What is the proposal due date, and is there any confusion in the dates provided?

The metadata in the text shows a current closing date of May 25, 2010, even though the narrative references May 17, 2010. This mismatch is highlighted as a reason to monitor amendments and official postings for the most current deadline.