- What's new In ROSES 2009? How does it differ from prior ROSES?
- Proposal Summary length limits,4000 characters or 300 words?
- I missed the dead line for the letter of intent, may I still propose?
- Letters of support from facilities that aren't under your control.
- Recommendations about making your PDF readable by reviewers: Embedded fonts and .PNG images.
- The New Millennium Program is being terminated. Why?
- ROSES 08 seems to suggest that Co-Is should be affiliated with my institution even
though they work else where when it says:
"The organizational affiliation specified must be the organization through which the team member is participating in the proposed investigation. If the individual has multiple affiliations, then this organization may be different from the individual's primary employer..."
- Redaction: are you still hiding the budgets?
- Are we allowed to submit proposals in two-column format or not?
- I have a candidate for a GSRP but I am not listed on the GSRP web page and I heard the GSRP might be going away. What's going on?
- Where can I learn the latest about requirements for mission PIs?
- Is Science Still Growing at 1% Annually?
- How did SMD manage to accelerate the Earth Science Decadal missions, and also augment the Lunar Science Research line, without a budget increase? Which programs suffered in order to pay for these increases?
- While there has been some improvement in the FY09 and out-year budget projection for Earth Science, it is still roughly flat through 2010, and then drops off in 2011-2013. And it remains well below the levels recommended by the NRC Decadal Review. Why does NASA think these levels are adequate? When will the list of missions prioritized by the NRC be completed?
- What were the Conflict of Interest Issues on the Mars Scout Selection?
- SIM vs. a medium class exoplanet mission
- NASA says it has made JDEM the next major mission in the Physics of the Cosmos Program, consistent with the recommendations of the BEPAC committee. But there is very little money requested for the mission in FY09. Why doesn't NASA provide sufficient funding to proceed swiftly with this critical Project?
- What are the JDEM plans for cooperation with DoE?
- What is the status of the MMS mission, and why has NASA repeatedly delayed this mission and reduced its budget?
- The New Millennium Program is being terminated. Why?
- What are plans for Solar Probe?
- When is my annual progress report due, and what should it look like?
- Can NASA require selected investigators to serve as peer reviewers? Can NASA fund them to do this?
- What is happening with Technology Development?
- I have a foreign Co-investigator, can this person be supported via a NASA grant?
- I am switching to a new university in the fall but I have grants that I hold here that are already in progress, what should I do?
- Can a company make a profit from a grant?
- Questions about grant.gov
- How do they meet the governments’ obligation to accept proposals up until the due date so that we can have an open and fair solicitation?
- May I include in my ROSES proposal a link to my web page for more information for the benefit of the reviewers? What about reprints or preprints, may I include those as an appendix to my proposal?
- What happened to those PI requirements for mission proposals?
- What's new In ROSES 2009? How does it differ from prior ROSES?
ROSES 2009 and the 2009 Guidebook for Proposers are different in at least 6 ways:
- Relevance Simplification. Under ROSES 2009 you will only have to argue relevance to that particular program, and need not include generic statements of relevance to NASA’s broader goals. We wouldn’t solicit proposals in a certain area if it were inconsistent with our strategic plan, so you don’t have to waste a paragraph telling us that it is. See ROSES for details.
- No proposals for conferences. Some program elements called for proposals for topical conferences, workshops, consortia, symposia. Such proposals will not be considered by any ROSES program elements in 2009.
- Ban on general purpose equipment only for > $ 5000. The guidebook for proposers currently bans “General-purpose equipment (i.e., personal computers and/or commercial software)� as a direct cost without “written certification that the equipment will be used exclusively for the proposed research activities and not for general business or administrative purposes.� Otherwise such things were to be purchased out of “overhead�, but many institutions simply don’t have funds for purchasing computers in this manner. Starting in ROSES 2009 general-purpose equipment that costs less than $ 5000 will be exempt from this rule, and this will be reflected in the new guidebook for proposers.
- Letters of collaboration will not be required for proposals submitted through NSPIRES. If you are a team member on a proposal submitted via NSPIRES you will log into NSPIRES and confirm your participation on each proposal electronically. If you have more than one institutional affiliation you choose which institution you want to receive the funds via this proposal, so we can do automatic conflict of interest checking.
- In ROSES 2009 we will be providing estimated start date for awards. We are doing this for the folks at NASA centers where the funds must be spent in the same fiscal year in which they are received. Proposers from NASA centers are requested to describe in which fiscal year(s) they would like their funds to arrive. Recipients of grants, contracts and inter-agency transfers need not be concerned about this.
- Some program elements from last year have moved (e.g., Near Earth Object Observations has moved into appendix C), some have been combined with others (e.g., Jupiter Data Analysis has been subsumed into Outer Planets), and some are simply not being solicited this year (e.g., ASTID). Please carefully read the solicitation.
One thing that will not be changing is the redaction of budgets. We will continue to show the budget details to reviewers. However, reviewers will be told not to concentrate on salary levels, fringe benefit rates, and overhead rates, but rather to focus on the cost reasonableness and realism of work effort (and procurements) to carry out the proposed investigation.
- The Guidebook for Proposers says that the length limit for the Proposal Summary is 4,000 characters, but I am getting a warning even though I am well below that limit. Also this is not the same as the 300 word limit given by NSPIRES on the View Proposal - Proposal Summary page, so what is the real limit? What happens if I go over the limit, will you reject my proposal?
Yes, apologies. The real limit is imposed by NSPIRES and it is 4000 characters (including spaces), but if you paste from a word processor that also includes some hidden characters that you cannot see so it may be fewer than 4000 as counted by, for example, Microsoft word. If you exceed the limit nothing terrible will happen, you will simply get an error message (see image) asking you to shorten your summary.
If you are using Grants.gov, which will let you put in a longer abstract, it will get cut off when its ingested into NSPIRES and the 4000 character limit is imposed, so make sure you are well under the 4000 character limit. - I missed the dead line for the letter of intent, may I still propose?
Yes! The notice of intent (NOI a.k.a. letter of intent or LOI) is a courtesy to the program officer so that he or she can make sure to have people with the right expertise on the panel, but it is not a prerequisite for submission of proposals to ROSES.
- Section 2.3.9 of the guidebook on statements of commitment says letters of support are
required from the owner of "any facility or resources that is not under the PI's direct control."
Does this apply to telescopes/observing time at facilities around the country in order to complete
research?
We were thinking primarily of a situation where a proposer wants to use a resource that is not a standard facility, e.g., an expensive microscope in someone else's lab where there is no reason to expect that the PI would necessarily be given free access, because the person who runs that instrument is not a named co-investigator or collaborator.
In the case of a large shared telescope facility with a standard procedure for acquiring time it is probably adequate to simply write, for example, "I have been awarded four consecutive nights in late June on the IRTF", but if it were me I would include the email from the telescope if I had one. Often, at the time of proposal submission, the proposer has no guarantee of access to the telescope, in which case they should simply reassure the reviewers that they are likely to get the time and/or that the success of the proposal does not hinge on that time being awarded. In the end I'm confident that such a proposal would still deemed "compliant" despite the fact that such a letter is absent; it simply makes it less likely that it would be given a high rating by peer review, and thus be funded. But this has always been true.
- Is NASA recommending/forcing/not worrying about whether people have embedded fonts in
their PDFs? How does that come into play with the requirement that only Type 1 or TrueType fonts be
utilized when proposing? Is there a list of specific fonts being recommended? Also, if we insert a
copy of our internal budget as a .PNG as part of our budget justification, does that also need to be
fully searchable and editable, as is required of the rest of the proposal?
On occasion we have difficulty with certain reviewers being able to read certain proposals that were generated on unusual systems, but thus far we have deemed it wiser to deal with those rare inconveniences when they arise rather than forcing all proposers to do something. So I guess the more correct answer is not "not worrying' but rather that I worry but you should not have to. That said, I personally only use standard fonts and would only use an image like a .PNG if I absolutely had to: text is better because someone with poor sight can increase the fonts sizes easily, it always prints well etc. Thus, I am not going to tell you what to do but the guiding principle can be summarized as "Don't annoy the reviewer."
- The New Millennium Program is being terminated. Why?
The New Millennium Program has not been terminated; however, new mission starts have been indefinitely postponed as a consequence of reprioritization of SMD goals, and a review of return on investment for the Agency in this technology program. Given the pressure of the four decadal surveys and R&A in our budget portfolio, it was judged more important to advance science goals than technology goals in the short term. Delivery of the ST-7 Disturbance Reduction System is on track to support the Lisa Pathfinder launch in 2010 and the four ST-8 technologies will be developed through ground validation by September 2008.
- ROSES 08 seems to suggest that Co-Is should be affiliated with my institution even
though they work else where when it says:
"The organizational affiliation specified must be the organization through which the team member is participating in the proposed investigation. If the individual has multiple affiliations, then this organization may be different from the individual's primary employer..."
Is that what you really want?
No, sorry about that, the wording is terrible, we are going to amend it to make that more clear. The whole point is to avoid conflict of interest (which is based on institution) during review so the quick answer is please put down the institution that pays you. If more than one, then the one that has agreed that its appropriate for you to be working on this project. For example, if you are a civil servant at NASA Ames and a Co-I on a proposal submitted by the SETI institute, or a civil servant at JPL on a proposal submitted by Cal Tech, your affiliation should still be your NASA center. We are going to amend ROSES 08, the text will probably read (change in bold)
Each individual team member (e.g., PI, co-investigators, etc.), including all personnel named on the proposal's electronic cover page, must specify an organizational affiliation. The organizational affiliation specified on the cover page must be the organization through which the team member would work and receive funding while participating in the proposed investigation. If the individual has multiple affiliations, then this organization may be different from the individual's primary employer or preferred mailing address.
- We had heard that this year the reviewers were going to be able to see the budget that
is being submitted - is that correct? If that is the case, can a person have that budget summary
submitted within their proposal or does it have to be uploaded as a separate document?
Yes, under ROSES 2008 the reviewers will now see all of the budget information, redaction has been suspended. In section 2.3 of the guidebook (page 2-5) the budget is listed as a constituent part of the proposal, and as such should be included in the single uploaded PDF file. Moreover, there are no page limits in the budget sections; the page limits next to "budget narrative" and "budget details" are "As needed."
- Are we allowed to submit proposals in two-column format or not? On page 2-3 (page 22 of
the PDF file) of the 2007 Guidebook for Proposers "Responding to a NASA Research Announcement" the
first bullet in section 2.2 states that proposals should be "...one or two columns..." yet the next
bulleted point on this page reads, "For electronically submitted proposals, text must be in a single
column format. Multiple-column text is difficult to review electronically." It seems ambiguous.
Apologies for the confusion. In the new guidebook that was just released and applies to ROSES 2008 I think we fixed this. The two column format is permitted only for hard copy proposals. Almost everything we do is electronic submission, so assume one column for SMD. Still, the guidebook applies to other directorates and to CANs and AOs as well and some of those may permit hard copy proposals so there are times where two columns might still be allowed, but this would only be for hard copy submissions.
- I have a candidate for a GSRP but I am not listed on the GSRP web page and I heard the
GSRP might be going away. What's going on?
The GSRP has not gone away, and your candidate can propose to work with you at your NASA center even if your name is not listed on the GSRP web page. Centers fund GSRP, although the budget has been greatly reduced at many centers. However, SMD HQ funding now funds students with the NASA Earth and Space Science Fellowship (NESSF) program via NSPIRES.
- Where can I learn the latest about requirements for mission PIs?
The latest information can be downloaded from the bottom of the Langley New Frontiers web page
- Is Science Still Growing at 1% Annually?
Congress increased the Science budget in FY08 above the President's request. The FY09 budget request is 1% above the President's FY08 request, before transfers of program content to other Directorates (such as the Deep Space Network budget transfer to Space Operations). The budget grows at 1% annually through FY11, and then at the Agency growth rate.
(Note that in FY 2009, $256M worth of Deep Space and Near Earth Network budget was transferred to Space Operations. There are another 22.9M in program transfers out of SMD in FY09. This has to be added back to the FY 2009 budgets when comparing to FY 2008. Resulting rate for FY09 is 1.2%, FY10 is .91% and FY 11 is 1.2%, annualized rate remains above 1% through 2011.)
- How did SMD manage to accelerate the Earth Science Decadal missions, and also augment the
Lunar Science Research line, without a budget increase? Which programs suffered in order to pay for
these increases?
SMD developed the FY 2009 budget with the objective of getting more science done within the available budget. Consequently, many changes were made in program content in each of our four science themes. The Earth Science Decadal missions, along with the Lunar Science Research Program, increases in Research and Analysis, expanded efforts in the suborbital rockets and balloons programs, and new missions (Solar Probe Plus, the Outer Planets Flagship, and the Joint Dark Energy Mission) were accommodated by reductions in the Planetary, Heliophysics, and Astrophysics themes. The most significant reductions include:
- Planetary: Took advantage of the Mars Scout delay from 2011 to 2013; reduced Mars mid-decade efforts to focus on a sample return mission in the 2018-2020 timeframe.
- Heliophysics: Defered Living with a Star Sentinels Missions and ramped down the New Millenium technology demonstration program.
- Astrophysics: Reduced out year mission operations costs for the Spitzer and Chandra space telescopes.
- While there has been some improvement in the FY09 and out-year budget projection for Earth
Science, it is still roughly flat through 2010, and then drops off in 2011-2013. And it remains well
below the levels recommended by the NRC Decadal Review. Why does NASA think these levels are
adequate? When will the list of missions prioritized by the NRC be completed?
The President's FY09 Budget enables the acceleration of the entire queue of missions identified by the Decadal Survey. NASA now expects to be able to launch the first mission in approximately 2012, the second mission in 2015, and up to four more of the identified missions by 2020. Attempting to meet all of the goals of the Decadal Survey, including the launch of all Tier 1-3 missions by 2020, would devastate our Astrophysics, Planetary Science and Heliophysics programs. Moreover, there appears to be good reason to believe that the Earth Science Decadal Survey can be further accelerated by finding less expensive ways to build and launch these missions.
- What were the Conflict of Interest Issues on the Mars Scout Selection
One proposer violated a requirement in the Announcement of Opportunity which created a conflict of interest. To mitigate this, the government was required to form a new evaluation team, and the contractors were required to resubmit their proposal. These events delayed the anticipated selection date, which compressed the mission development schedule beyond the ability to launch in the 2011 Mars opportunity. As a result of this delay, funds were available in the short term to be used in the new lunar and Earth initiatives.
- NASA says it wants to stop work on SIM, and instead focus on a "medium-class" exoplanet
mission. But the basic design of such a mission is unknown. Why does NASA think that such a
"medium-class" exoplanet mission is feasible? Isn't this just wishful thinking, that NASA will be
able to build an entirely new type of mission for less money than the well-studied SIM?
NASA's Astrophysics Division is positioning its portfolio to make significant progress in exoplanet studies by the middle of next decade. While maintaining a balanced portfolio, the projected available resources allow only a medium class mission to be developed and launched in this time frame. Developing a flagship (>$1B) class SIM mission at this time would eliminate diversity and balance in the Astrophysics program and would disregard the community-based recommendations of the NRC and NASA's other advisory committees. Modest aperture coronagraphic and statistical survey missions have been proposed to NASA's Discovery program and it is likely that a highly capable mission could be developed for $600-800M. However, it is not known at this time what the cost is of a scaled-down astrometric mission that achieves the performance and science return described in previous National Academy and other community reports. Therefore, a large fraction of the FY08 funds for SIM will be spent assessing the technical implementation and cost of a SIM Lite mission concept. In addition, medium class mission concept studies, that include both astrometric and coronagraphic concepts, have been solicited. In response to this the astronomical community turned in 42 medium mission concept proposals in late 2007; these are currently under review. The SIM Lite implementation study and the results from several other competitively selected mission concept studies will put NASA in a position by 2009-2010 to choose a mission architecture for development. The flagship class SIM (or any re-scoped version >$1B), along with other large missions like Constellation-X, will also be reviewed by the National Research Council in its next Astronomy and Astrophysics Decadal Review to be released in 2010. The NRC will recommend, as part of its report, which large mission should be developed after JWST, when resources become available.
- NASA says it has made JDEM the next major mission in the Physics of the Cosmos Program,
consistent with the recommendations of the BEPAC committee. But there is very little money requested
for the mission in FY09. Why doesn't NASA provide sufficient funding to proceed swiftly with this
critical Project?
The BEPAC report of September 2007 recommended that NASA proceed with the Joint Dark Energy Mission (JDEM) as the first mission to be developed and launched in the Physics of the Cosmos (formerly Beyond Einstein) program. NASA expects to issue an Announcement of Opportunity by late FY2008 that will lead to selection of a PI-led science investigation and determine the mission architecture. With proposals due in early FY2009, the selection will be announced by mid-FY2009, and Phase A mission design activities will commence shortly thereafter. The FY2009 budget request for JDEM of $8.5M is fully adequate to initiate the Phase A study activities through FY2009. Subsequent funding in FY2010-2013 will support the detailed design and implementation phases of this medium-scale mission, leading to an expected launch in the 2014/2015 time frame, depending on the mission architecture.
- What are the JDEM plans for cooperation with DoE?
We're in the process of mission formulation and that process is on track and on schedule. Part of that process is determining the roles of NASA and DoE.
- What is the status of the MMS mission, and why has NASA repeatedly delayed this mission and
reduced its budget?
The Magnetospheric Multi-Scale (MMS) mission, an intensive investigation of the physics of magnetic reconnection, has just transitioned from phase A to Phase B in its development toward launch. This transition occurred at the Initial Conformation Review held by SMD and NASA HQ in the 4th Quarter of CY07. The ICR was delayed from its initial date due to lack of sufficient preparation. The budget profile of the project has been independently validated, and the project has adequate funding as it continues development toward flight.
- The New Millennium Program is being terminated. Why?
The New Millennium Program has not been terminated; however, new missions have been indefinitely postponed as a consequence of reprioritization of SMD goals, and a review of return on investment for the Agency in this technology program. Given the pressure of the four decadal surveys and R&A in our budget portfolio, it was judged more important to advance science goals than technology goals in the short term.
- What are plans for Solar Probe?
The Solar Probe Mission was endorsed as the highest priority Heliophysics mission in the major mission class. The purpose of the mission is to investigate the inner portion of the solar system and the dynamic changes of the particles and fields found near the sun. It is mankind's first voyage to a star. The concept is to use interactions with Venus to lower the perihelion of the space craft so that very close approaches to the sun are achieved. We restructured the long-awaited Solar Probe mission to be a higher value, lower cost, non-nuclear mission in the medium cost category, "Solar Probe Plus". The resulting concept provides more science value for approximately one half the cost. Pre -phase A work performed the first year is intended to enable the issuance of an Announcement of Opportunity for investigations for the Solar Orbiter mission at the beginning of FY09.
- When is my annual progress report due, and what should it look like?
You will get an email from the NSSC approximately two weeks before your annual progress report is due, asking you to send an email with the following information which they prefer to have as a pdf:
- A statement that this is an annual progress report.
- Title of the grant.
- Name of the principal investigator.
- Period covered by the report.
- Name and address of the recipient's institution.
- Grant number.
- A summary of the accomplishments and a list of publications that have appeared over the past year as a result of the award. Of course all publications should acknowledge NASA support, including the name of the program, and the grant number(s).
- Can NASA require selected investigators to serve as peer reviewers? Can NASA fund them to do
this?
NASA cannot provide funding for serving on a peer review panel through a research grant. No, we cannot force recipients of grants to serve as reviewers. However, we beg, beseech, implore, and entreat you all to review proposals each year. The health of the system rests on the quality of peer review, so we need YOU to review proposals. If you have not been asked to serve on a review panel recently and would like to volunteer to be considered, please send an email to sara(at)nasa.gov.
- What is happening with Technology Development?
Technology Development will continue to be managed within each Division's purview where the missions and the R&A programs are managed. There is no separate division devoted specifically to technology. The need and requirements for technology development will be decided within the four science divisions (Astrophysics, Earth Science, Heliophysics, and Planetary), with input from the office of the Chief Scientist and SARA as appropriate.
- I have a foreign Co-investigator, can this person be supported via a NASA grant?
Short plain English answer: The rules are that NASA funds research conducted by researchers at US institutions, and foreign agencies pay for the research conducted by researchers at foreign institutions. Thus the rules focus on the institution, not the individual. If your institution hires this foreign investigator, then you can pay him/her while they are in your employ. If the foreign investigator does not have a position at a US institution, then NASA funds cannot be used to support them, not even for travel.
Longer answer more precise answer: These rules are found in the Guidebook for Proposers, Section 2.3.11(b)(vi)
(vi) Prohibition of the Use of NASA Funds for Non-U.S. Research. NASA's policy welcomes the opportunity to conduct research with non-U.S. organizations on a cooperative, no-exchange-of-funds basis. Although Co-Is or collaborators employed by non-U.S. organizations may be identified as part of a proposal submitted by a U.S. organization, NASA funding may not normally be used to support research efforts by non-U.S. organizations at any level; however, the direct purchase of supplies and/or services that do not constitute research from non-U.S. sources by U.S. award recipients is permitted. See also Section (l) of Appendix B.
These rules flow directly from requirements in the NASA Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) Supplement, Part 1852.235-72.
- I am switching to a new university in the fall but I have grants that I hold here that are
already in progress, what should I do?
If you have a grant that is already in progress which needs to be transferred to the new institution then please contact your program officer as soon as possible. If you have a grant pending then let your program officer know even if you are not certain when you are moving to the new institution (we will keep your secret). Bottom line: it is really hard to get money back once it has been sent to the first institution.
Technically, grants belong to institutions not PIs. Since the grant belongs to the old institution, we have to get the old institution to agree in writing to give up the grant. Then, the new institution has to submit a proposal with a budget because they are getting a new grant, and this grant requires a proposal. The new proposal should be identical to the old proposal but with a budget and signature from the new institution for the work remaining. Finally the program officer must justify the acceptance of what is in effect an 'unsolicited' proposal from the new institution. Any grants you submit before you move should be submitted from the new institution if at all possible. If that cannot be done, the PI and the new institution should both send letters to the program officer stating that the research will be done at the new institution.
- Can a company make a profit from a grant?
Anybody can propose to NASA's R&A program, including a for-profit company. In order to receive a grant, the company must give up fee and profit. However, from certain kinds of announcements of opportunity a business can receive a contract and that can include a line for profit. See the Guidebook for Proposers, Section D.1.2.
- Questions about grants.gov
Last year only 0.5% of our proposals were submitted via grants.gov, and the number diminishes with each passing year. Please take note of the following issues/differences between grants,gov and our proposal submitting web interface, NSPIRES.
In order to check for conflicts of interest and to speed the disbursement of funds we need all proposers (and co-investigators) to be registered in a database and grants.gov does not provide this for us. Thus, you must register with NSPIRES, no matter what. You can submit by grants.gov but you still have to be registered in NSPIRES anyway.
If you are on a proposal submitted via NSPIRES you will confirm your participation on each proposal electronically, and if you have more than one institutional affiliation you choose which institution you want to receive the funds via this proposal, so we can do automatic conflict of interest checking. If you are using grants.gov there is no way for us to do this, so you will have to include letters of commitment and we will have to check for conflict of interest by hand.
Grants.gov does not notify proposers when the system is down, they merely post an alert on the home page. When preparing a Grants.gov application package, you are working offline. So, if the system is down on a due date then when you click the ‘submit’ button the application package will hang. Check for alerts regarding downtimes. Grants.gov does not track who downloads the application packages. Unlike NSPIRES, with Grants.gov we will have no idea that you were working on a proposal that was not submitted.
NSPIRES enforces our 4000 character limit on the abstract. Grants.gov, which will let you put in a longer abstract, but it will get cut off when its ingested into NSPIRES, so make sure you are well under the 4000 character limit.
- How do they meet the governments’ obligation to accept proposals up until the due date so that we can have an open and fair solicitation?
They don't. GAO is preparing to conduct an audit of Grants.gov and one of their primary concerns are the "pain points" that grantees encounter with the system (i.e., system issues, complaints - how they are handled and communicated).
- May I include in my ROSES proposal a link to my web page for more
information for the benefit of the reviewers? What about reprints or
preprints, may I include those as an appendix to my proposal?
Reprints and/or preprints are not permitted to be appended to a proposal unless they are accommodated within the proposal page limit. Proposals shall not rely upon material posted on a website. All information and material necessary for an informed peer review of the proposal must be included within the proposal in a manner that is compliant with the proposal page limit and permitted appendices. References to unpublished manuscripts should be avoided. Any information required to evaluate the proposal must be included within the proposal. If a proposal requires referenced material (not included within the proposal page limit) in order to be evaluated, this information will not be examined and the proposal may be judged noncompliant.
- What happened to those PI requirements for mission proposals?
According to SPD-13B, the PI requirement policy, "...the experience and expertise of the proposed mission management team will be a required evaluation factor in all subsequent SMD Announcements of Opportunity (AO). The experience and expertise of the proposed mission management team will be evaluated as a factor of the Technical Management and Cost Feasibility (TMC) criterion in all the AO evaluations."
