FSP System Draft AFPP Questions and Answers.pdf

Fission Surface Power (FSP) System

Draft Announcement for Partnership Proposals (AFPP) Q&A

1. Would NASA consider ranking or weighing "should" statements in system capabilities against the evaluation criteria?

Evaluation criteria will be provided in the final AFPP.

2. Will NASA consider removing "commercial business potential" as an evaluation factor? Will you explicitly call out the price realism and ability to deliver into the down selection / award criteria in the final AFPP?

No, NASA is not considering removing “commercial business potential” as an evaluation factor. Evaluation criteria will be provided in the final AFPP.

3. Will NASA require bidders to submit a financial capabilities disclosure as part of their proposal?

Participants are required to provide their financial plan and cost as part of their proposal and may include historical financial documents as part of Appendix C for additional consideration of financial viability.

4. Will NASA provide an independent government cost estimate (IGCE) for the whole program as part of the final AFPP?

NASA does not intend to release an Independent Government Cost Estimate.

5. Some milestones will be contingent on government activities like nuclear launch approval or ground test regulations. How can we be assured that potential slowdowns of these activities will not affect contractor milestone payments?

It is the responsibility of the participant to plan for all required scheduled milestones necessary for launch, to include US government safety and regulatory milestones.

Participants may highlight potential schedule delays to NASA to request assistance with interagency engagement and priority, but schedule milestones – and associated payments– are ultimately the responsibility of the participant.

6. Will NASA provide consistent exit criteria for the base period?

Participants are expected to propose entrance and exit criteria for each of their milestones. The base period concludes with a successful nuclear demonstration.

7. Would NASA be open to including termination liability clauses to reduce contractor risk resulting from incomplete technical requirements or uncertain regulatory processes?

The model Funded Space Act Agreement (FSAA) presents a termination clause.

Participants may propose changes to the model FSAA clauses as defined in the AFPP. Any participant-proposed changes to the FSAA must be highlighted with an accompanying rationale explaining why the proposed change is necessary. Otherwise, NASA seeks to use standard articles/approaches for all participants and will seek to adopt the FSAA, as drafted in the AFPP. Any proposed changes to standard terms will be evaluated for acceptability and presented to the Selection Authority. Unacceptable changes to standard terms can impact a participant’s selection. Additionally, please also note that the Government does not anticipate revisions to the terms of the FSAA post-award. Proposals cannot be contingent on NASA accepting proposed changes to the FSAA.

8. Will there be another draft AFPP provided to industry prior to release of the final

AFPP?

NASA does not anticipate releasing another draft AFPP to industry prior to release of the final AFPP.

9. What defines a “primary” and sub-participant on a team?

A major sub-participant is considered any entity that provides a major sub-system such as the reactor, Power Management and Distribution (PMAD), Power Conversion System (PCS), and/or rover (if proposed) or has at least a 10% stake in the overall business venture. The primary participant is the participant who signs the Funded Space Act Agreement (FSAA).

10. Will long lead-time procurements be eligible within early milestones to de-risk delivery?

Yes, long lead-time procurements will be eligible within early milestones to de-risk delivery to the partner, but they must be directly called out within the milestone.

11. Can milestone payments be split into Contract Line Items (CLINS) and Sub- CLINS upon partial objective completion?

The participant should propose the number of milestones required for successful completion of their FSAA. As a general guideline, at least one milestone per calendar quarter should be proposed.

12. Although this is a NASA FSAA with Fixed milestone payments, can NASA confirm whether the commercial arrangement is intended to be Firm Fixed Priced, or whether a Time and Material component is available for discrete tasks materially impacted by: NASA Priority/use constraints, Export/Department of Energy (DOE)/ Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensing, or NASA unilateral termination/strategic shifts?

The milestone payments will be for fixed amounts.

13. Will NASA confirm in the Final AFPP/FSAA that (a) fixed-value milestone payments are not subject to incurred-cost audits, Cost Accounting Standards (CAS), or certified cost/pricing data, and (b) audit/validation is limited to documented cost-share contributions (per a Cost-Share Annex), with Participants permitted to include internal Management Reserve (MR) within priced milestones?

NASA does not anticipate incurred-cost audits, CAS, and Certified Cost/Pricing Data will be required.

14. Will NASA apply any withhold/retainage to milestone payments under the Final AFPP/FSAA? If so, please specify the percentage (or range), the trigger(s) and release conditions, whether any withhold applies equally to NASA-funded and cost-share-only milestones, and whether alternatives (e.g., surety/performance bond or standby letter of credit) may be used in lieu of a cash withhold.

No, NASA does not anticipate withholds to milestone payments.

15. Will the FSAA include an explicit amendment/re-baselining mechanism that permits

a) Periodic (e.g., quarterly or at major reviews) updates to milestone content, dates, and payment allocations via bilateral amendment approved by the Agreements Officer; and

b) Redistribution of NASA’s fixed total contribution across milestones (without increasing the total) to reflect realized risks, regulatory pacing, or Artemis integration changes? Please identify the Draft Model FSAA article(s) that will govern such amendments; the documentation required (e.g., revised milestone/payment plan and schedule); any thresholds distinguishing “administrative” vs. “substantive” changes; and whether adjustments triggered by NASA-managed regulatory timeline changes will be treated as equitable schedule/payment adjustments.

Modifications to the FSAA are addressed in Article 25 of the FSAA.

16. Consistent with the Draft AFPP §3.3 and §4.7, will NASA confirm that it is open to:

a) a more frequent milestone cadence (e.g., averaging about one milestone every one or two months) where justified by work sequencing and objective success criteria?

The participant should propose the number of milestones required for successful completion of their FSAA. As a general guideline, at least one milestone per calendar quarter should be proposed.

b) a defined startup/mobilization milestone early in Phase A to address long-lead procurement cash needs (with verifiable acceptance criteria such as executed Purchase Orders (POs), letters of credit, or supplier schedule baselines), in addition to standard technical reviews and test completions?

A startup milestone payment will be considered, if included in the participant’s milestone recommendations.

17. Are we allowed to claim both past and present costs associated with raising the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of space nuclear technologies as part of our cost share, specifically those investments that directly support the development of the FSP system and meet the technical and safety criteria outlined in the Draft AFPP? Can like/kind contributions such as Internal Research and Development (IRAD) investments, facility investments, or in-kind labor be counted as Partner Share in the Total Price Summary?

No, past investments should not be included in cost share. Current investments can be included.

18. If NASA funding is not appropriated, either in part or in full, what are the agreement expectations? Is it NASA’s expectation that the Participant continue performance on a self-funded basis, or will the agreement be modified or terminated?

How to proceed in the event of a funding shortage will be addressed based on the prevailing circumstances. Per the Draft FSAA, “Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, all activities under or pursuant to this Agreement are subject to the availability of funds, and no provision of this Agreement shall be interpreted to require obligation or payment of funds in violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act, (31 U.S.C. § 1341).”

19. What are the evaluation criteria that NASA will use to select FSAA awardees?

Specifically, will awards be based on Best Value tradeoffs, Low Cost/Technically Acceptable, or another approach?

The evaluation criteria will be provided in the final AFPP.

20. If the Phase B purchase of commercial power on the lunar surface will be procured under a follow-on Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)-based contract, are we only providing a Rough Order Magnitude (ROM) in the B5.

Commercial Lunar Power Business Plan? Why ask for such a plan if the procurement will follow later?

Yes, Participants should propose estimated costs for Phase B to assist the government in understanding Phase B requirements.

21. Will NASA please define their 'power buy' (timing & quantity)? NASA to propose a not to exceed (NTE) value of the on-going Price to be paid in Phase B to assess the ROI for the investment. NASA needs to guarantee a certain level of power will be procured each month at the specified rate. This is equivalent to providing a guaranteed number of launches to the commercial cargo providers for International Space Station (ISS).

Any sales to NASA during the anticipated Phase B of the FSP effort would be governed by a separate procurement contract. Participants should propose estimated costs for Phase B.

22. Will NASA please clearly state how much they intend to cover of each milestone and what their preferred cost share percentage is for each?

The participants should propose the cost of each milestone and their associated cost share percentage. NASA will not prescribe a specific cost break down but does expect a significant cost share with the partner to achieve each milestone.

23. Will NASA please provide specifics on who the Selection Authority (SA) includes?

The name of the Selection Authority will not be disclosed.

24. NASA indicates they will consider requests for government support in the form of expertise, lessons learned, technical data, facilities, and equipment. Does NASA also have the ability to advocate for this program as a national priority similar to a Department of Defense (DoD) program with a DX rating? There are aspects of the solution space that may require procurements for this project to gain priority for procurements, test facilities, and regulatory approval in order to meet the required schedule.

Yes, NASA recognizes this as a national priority and will assist with requests for government support, as appropriate. Participants may highlight specific aspects of the effort that they identify as requiring prioritization in their proposals.

25. Will NASA accept any classified materials as a part of the proposal?

No, NASA will not accept any classified materials as a part of the proposals.

26. Will the 100 Kilowatt-electric (kWe) power requirement be a “shall” or a “should”? The draft AFPP indicated it was a hard requirement in Section 3.1, but in Attachment 1, the use of “should” was used for power, indicating a suggested requirement. We request that it be clarified and consistent in the final AFPP.

Providing a minimum of 100 kWe is a shall. The single fault tolerant for delivering power is a should.

27. For avoidance of doubt, does the December 2027 Prototype Subsystem Acceptance milestone require a non-nuclear demonstration of all subsystems—i.e., including the reactor as an unfueled/ electrically or thermally simulated article demonstrated in its relevant environment— with the first fueled (nuclear) reactor operation reserved for the March 2028 Nuclear Reactor Ground Demonstration milestone? If not, please specify what level of reactor testing (if any) is expected by December 2027 and define “relevant environment” for the reactor subsystem (e.g., electrically heated core simulator vs. fueled operation).

This will be clarified in the final AFPP.

28. Will NASA clarify whether the Suggested System Capabilities (SSC)-25/SSC-26 dose limits apply as a three-dimensional requirement that extends vertically from the surface into space (e.g., overflight by orbiters at very low altitudes)?

There is no requirement for vertical dose limits.

29. Can the Phase A Base system qualification be achieved via separate subsystem demonstration tests, i.e., reactor, Brayton Power Conversion System (PCS), Power Management and Distribution (PMAD), heat rejection all tested separately?

A system qualification is not prescribed in the AFPP. Participants should propose their own method for ensuring their system meets the AFPP objectives and requirements.

30. Can the Reactor subsystem be qualified by similarity, i.e., utilizing demonstration tests already planned to occur on IRAD or separate contracts demonstrating similar fundamental reactor physics, performance, and controls but at different system scales or power levels?

Participants wishing to propose using other demonstration tests and data should document the assumptions for why it is appliable to the FSP system.

31. Confirm if use of regolith as radiation shielding is allowed. Did not see any requirements that would prevent that.

Regolith may be used to achieve the dose limit boundary conditions. How it is used is up to the Partner. The Partner should provide details for how they intend to utilize regolith in their proposal.

32. Design for total power off for long duration shutdown in lunar night may not be feasible from a mass perspective since it may require a separate heat source like a Radioisotope Power System (RPS) to keep FSP systems alive, such as the heat rejection subsystem working fluid. Can we make any assumptions about survival heater power being provided by the Hab or other surface assets back to the FSP during extended lunar night shutdowns?

The FSP system should not be dependent on other NASA lunar surface assets after deployment.

33. NASA have any appliable standards for lunar robotic operations compatibility such as connection of architecture expansion power cable later in the FSP surface mission?

NASA does not currently have a specification for robotics operations for cable deployment.

NASA defines the EHP-10069, Extravehicular Activity and Human Surface Mobility Program (EHP) Power Specification. This specification is derived from the public International Space Power System Interoperability Standards (ISPSIS).

34. Can NASA further define what specific technical parameters need to be measured by these sensors. We assume this is for human radiation exposure limits but want to be sure NASA does not have additional human user power requirements above existing Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) terrestrial standards.

The intent of SCC-014 is to monitor the radiation levels at the User Interface for mission planning purposes.

35. Does NASA have a preference on how this telemetry is provided to the user interface? Can it be done by any one of the following: serial links, surface RF links, or perhaps fiber optic links? Also please confirm if these links should be redundant.

How the telemetry is sent to the user interface is determined by the Partner. How it gets from the User Interface to other lunar surface assets is described in EHP-10098, Extravehicular Activity and Human Surface Mobility Program (EHP) Lunar Surface Integration Phase Software Interoperability Specification.

36. Can we assume NASA will provide some advance notice to FSP operations team of any significant increases in customer load power in case that requires increases in FSP reactor power output to provide that power?

Yes, for nominal operation. Off-nominal cases still need to be considered in the design.

37. Can NASA expand on the operations and purpose that it envisions for crewed operations of the FSP System? In the event provider choses to use astronaut aided maintenance, what are the human astronaut radiation exposure limitation requirements?

See Attachment 1, SSC-019. A NASA Operations Concept will be provided with the final

AFPP.

38. Can NASA confirm the autonomous operations requirement applies only after FSP is put into a fully operational state (e.g., does not apply during deployment and check out operations.

SCC-004 is meant to be used to protect the system from loss of communication events.

39. Will NASA allow a 100 kWe FSP system configuration on lunar surface that is comprised more than a single reactor-based system (example: two or more smaller reactors that together meet all 100 kWe FSP requirements)?

40. Could you clarify the anticipated acceptance criteria for the key milestones?

Does NASA, the Department of Energy (DoE), or any other stakeholders have approval authority? Specifically, who holds ownership of the review process?

We are operating under the assumption that the Prime Contractor is responsible; is this correct?

Yes, the Partner is responsible for defining the entrance and success criteria for their proposed milestones. Final entrance and success criteria will be negotiated before selection.

41. If refueling of the orbital transfer vehicle is necessary in low earth orbit is that allowed for a non-active reactor?

NASA does not currently have a restriction on refueling in space.

42. Will NASA be willing to provide some authority to the system provider regarding the selection of landing site within a NASA-specified landing region?

NASA will consider Partner’s landing site recommendations but landing site selection will be at the discretion of NASA. Any business case drivers for the landing site should be included in the Participant’s proposal.

43. What is NASA's approach to nuclear fuel feedstock for both the demonstration and flight unit -there is no commercially available HALEU fuel source available within the program timeline – very difficult for industry to try and resolve this.

NASA will coordinate with DOE for an allocation of HALEU for both the demonstration and flight unit. The partner is responsible for submitting the proper application through DOE.

44. What does NASA view as a “full scale” demonstration of the heat transport system? If our design has multiple radiator wings, could that be considered as one of the radiator wings? Could a single radiator panel, connected to the fluid loop manifold, be considered a “full scale” demonstration?

Will be clarified in the final AFPP.

45. Will NASA please clarify that Single Fault Tolerance allows for degraded modes of operation (i.e. lower power output)?

Single fault tolerance does not allow for degraded modes of operation.

46. Will NASA please clarify the number and duration of "planned" system restarts expected?

47. AFPP states the system "shall comply with applicable DOE and NASA radiation safety standards". Can NASA confirm which specific DOE and/or NASA radiation safety standards will be applicable? There are many standards and requirements across DOE and NASA, many of which may drive the design and operation conops of a reactor, so providers need to know which specific standards will be applicable.

48. AFPP states "shall meet NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 8715.6 Orbital

Debris Mitigation"; however, that NPR only applies to activities conducted under NASA authority, while commercial spaceflight activities are governed by FCC orbital debris safety regulations. Can NASA confirm that NPR 8715.6 will be applicable to NASA-sponsored missions, and that Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations will be applicable to Commercial-sponsored missions? Further, the FSP system is never intended to operate in Earth or Lunar orbit, only on the Lunar surface, so will orbital debris mitigation requirements truly apply to this contract?

49. Can NASA confirm they will accept delivery of data/ intellectual property (IP) with limited rights assertions for previously privately developed intellectual property and data? The Data Rights clause calls for no restriction on data exchanged between NASA and the partner but does allow for data given with a restrictive legend that NASA will protect and use only for evaluating performance.

Yes, NASA will accept delivery of “Background Data” (Proprietary Data developed exclusively at Disclosing Party’s expense outside of this Agreement) according to Art. 12, Section H of the FSAA.

50. Can NASA confirm that they will waive their exclusive ownership of patents developed by the Partner under this Agreement? The Patent Rights clause currently provides ownership and title to patents developed by the Partner under this agreement to the US Government. Partners will be utilizing both proprietary and NASA data to develop inventions and therefore exclusive ownership by the Government should not apply.

Under Art. 13 of the FSAA NASA agrees to waive exclusive title subject to a properly filed petition for Advance or Identified Waiver.

51. Is NASA working with the DOE so that enriched uranium is provided to proposing teams as “government furnished equipment”?

NASA and the DOE are in close collaboration on this effort. High assay low enriched uranium is being allocated for the FSP system, but it is still the responsibility of the partner to make the request with the DOE for the enriched uranium, whether HALEU or HEU.

52. Will the partnership agreements under this proposal be expected to satisfy US Treaty obligations under article VI of the Outer Space Treaty, or will the commercial entity have to seek authorization via a bespoke interagency review?

Yes, entities are expected to meet US Treaty obligations established or to be established within U.S. law and agency requirements.

53. Will NASA be the lead agency in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review for this project?

The head of the sponsoring agency is responsible for ensuring compliance with requirements under the NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. As the licensing authority for commercial space launches, the FAA is responsible for ensuring compliance with NEPA for commercial launches. If there is a need for new analysis and NEPA documentation, such as an environmental assessment, cooperating agencies will be included as appropriate.

54. Is NASA anticipating first-dollar indemnification for commercial launch operations? (Please reference industry's Part 440 financial responsibility aerospace rulemaking committee report from 1 March 2024 for Commercial Space Launch Act indemnification).

NASA currently anticipates that launch operations for the FSP effort will be Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)-licensed.

55. Will NASA confirm that the FSAA agreements include a pathway to the definition of the performers as DOE contractors in order to access liability limits per the Price-Anderson Act?

NASA is exploring authorities for providing indemnity and will provide additional information in the Final AFPP.

56. University Affiliated Research Center (UARC)s and Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDCs) have some history of well-integrated and completed missions. They may serve a unique and critical role of independence and integration for the FSP System of Systems. Are there limitations to UARC and FFRDC involvement in the program? Can these organizations participate in the proposal? Can they prime and serve as an independent integrator? Can the awarded commercial team use these organizations as a contract administrator?

UARCs and FFRDCs are not eligible to be a primary partner. UARCs and FFRDCs may partner with a primary partner to the extent that the UARC’s or FFRDC’s agreement with its sponsoring agency permits.

57. The draft FSAA used the phrase “reasonable efforts” in reference to actions taken by both the government and partner (the team). What defines reasonable efforts?

NASA currently does not have a definition of "reasonable efforts" other than its ordinary meaning.

58. In the Draft AFPP Article 5.4.2, Subsection B1.2 and Attachment 2: Draft Entity Eligibility Questionnaire, each of the Proposer's partners (i.e. "major sub-participants") shall complete this questionnaire. What are the criteria or thresholds that Proposer should consider when designating a sub-participant as a "major" sub-participant (and requiring disclosure in B1.2 "Teaming Arrangements" and providing a completed Entity Eligibility Questionnaire)?

With the exception of commercial launch service providers, only primary participants are required to complete the questionnaire.

59. With respect to the Draft AFPP Article 4.2 and Attachment 2: Draft Entity Eligibility Questionnaire, consider the following example: a US company (incorporated or organized in the US) with its office(s), employees, business activities and other operations principally (or exclusively) in the US; however, such company is majority-owned by foreign entities because the company was funded by venture capital investment from non-US investors (assume each investor individually is a minority shareholder of the company).

- Since such a company is neither (A) majority owned by US nationals nor (B) a subsidiary of the foreign company, how should such a company complete the Entity Eligibility Questionnaire or consider qualification under 4.2?

- Would the agency consider broadening the AFPP eligibility requirements to include such a company?

The definition of entities eligible to be awarded an FSAA set forth in Draft AFPP Section 4.2 is based upon 51 U.S.C. 50101 and is consistent with and intended to further the purposes and objectives of the FSP effort. As stated in Draft AFPP Section 4.2.B, eligibility of an entity organized under the laws of the United States or of a State, which is not more than 50 percent owned by United States nationals, must be established by a finding of the Secretary of Transportation.

60. Are the sales to NASA of the successive “Phases” governed by separate commercial supply agreements?

NASA seeks to award one or more FSAAs for Phase A of the FSP Effort. Any sales to NASA during the anticipated Phase B of the FSP effort would be governed by a separate procurement contract.

61. Will NASA confirm that the cross-waiver and unilateral waiver framework will apply comprehensively and without gaps to:

(a) the transportation of the fueled reactor to testing and integration facilities and the integrated nuclear ground demonstration to be performed on Earth;

(b) NASA’s use of Participant-provided property under the FSAA; and (c) third-party commercial launch or lunar-lander providers engaged by the Participant?

In addition, what specific insurance lines and minimum coverage limits (including any allowance for self-insurance) will NASA require across ground, launch, transit, and lunar surface operations, and will NASA pursue statutory indemnification under applicable authorities?

62. For the integrated nuclear ground demonstration, will NASA (a) designate one or more U.S. test sites suitable for the planned activities and publish the entry pathway (e.g., via separate Reimbursable/Nonreimbursable SAAs), or (b) confirm that Participants should independently secure licensed/approved sites? If a government site is contemplated, please outline the anticipated scope of permissible activities, prerequisites (e.g., National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) status and other regulatory interfaces), timeline to request/receive access, any facility usage fees or cost-share expectations, and whether site access can be aligned to milestone acceptance and payment events.

NASA plans to leave this up to the partner to either use their own facilities (as long as their facilities have appropriate nuclear licensing through either the NRC or DOE) or use other facilities that have appropriate licensing as well. A list of government capability POCs is available that has DOE and NASA center contacts that can further provide information on test facility capabilities.

63. Will Public Law 85-804 indemnification be incorporated into the Final AFPP/FSAA, and will its protections extend to all corporate partners participating in the FSP program?

64. What other indemnification clauses are under consideration for inclusion in the

Final AFPP/FSAA, and will they apply uniformly to all partner companies?

65. AFPP RFP Document Reference: Attachment 4 - Draft Model FSAA, Article 12, Intellectual Property Rights – Data Rights (page 11) – Can NASA confirm that it is not requesting any specific Data Rights for Data First Produced by Partner under the Agreement except in the cases outlined in the clause [for example,

12. B. (2) (a) – (e) or (3)]? If so, then recommend the words “during the restricted period” be removed from the first sentence of Article 12. B. (2).

Correct. NASA will remove “during the restricted period” in Art. 12.B.(2) as an unnecessary term.

66. AFPP RFP Document Reference: Attachment 4 - Draft Model FSAA, Article 32, Customer Priority (page 33) – Would NASA consider removing the pricing cap requirement given that Partners are being asked to make significant investments to support this project? For clarity, are the rate pricing limitations applicable to NASA only, all United States Government (USG) customers, or also intended to include energy pricing for commercial customers? Will NASA commit to buying certain volumes of energy (e.g. megawatt hours per day) for agreed time increments to justify Partner investments and agreement to pricing caps?

NASA is considering all the above; more information will be provided in the final AFPP.

67. AFPP RFP Document Reference: Attachment 4 - Draft Model FSAA, Article 34, Indemnification (page 34) – will the planned indemnification cover all potential 3rd party liability/claims in all Phases of the project? Given the nascent state of nuclear energy for space applications, it is important for the USG to provide broad umbrella protection for Partners as the availability and affordability of insurance is questionable at best.

68. Will NASA confirm that it will not levy specific requirements/standards for compliance with safety processes and that operators will be allowed to determine a bespoke safety case within the bounds of external regulatory compliance (i.e., FAA Regulations)?

For DOE authorization, applicable DOE safety standards must be followed by NASA and its partners. NASA compliance requirements will be listed in the final AFPP.

69. Is the system specific Safety Analysis Review (SAR) being used for National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM)-20 compliance regardless launch authorization agency?

The products from the system specific INSRB reviews can be used, as appropriate, as inputs to mission specific reviews. See NSPM-20 Section 5.

70. Can NASA confirm if NASA NPR 8715.26 should be used for NSPM-20 compliance approach (and not the United States Space Force (USSF) equivalent)?

NPR 8715.26 is NASA’s approach for compliance with NSPM20. The proposer will provide the regulatory pathway information that aligns with the authority for the activity, such as DOT for transportation.

71. In Article 4.2 of the Draft FSP System AFPP, how are "foreign entities" and "non- US organizations, collaborators or subcontractors" defined? More specifically:

Are these terms consistent with the definitions for "foreign organization" and "foreign public entity" in 2 CFR 200.1? Does the Draft AFPP's funding restriction on "foreign research participation "include participation by an entity established under and located in the U.S. with majority foreign ownership?

“Foreign entities” are defined as legal entities that are not established under a state or Federal law of the United States and include a commercial, noncommercial, or governmental entity of a foreign sovereign.

72. Will NASA, please clarify its position on termination liability in the event the program is cancelled but cost has been incurred towards future milestone(s).

Will NASA please clarify if the program can bill for these items?

Termination is addressed in Article 20 of the FSAA.