Reponses to Questions for NextSTEP-3 BAA Appendix A LEIA.pdf

1.05 Q: Could NASA provide clarity regarding the anticipated funding and award structure for this solicitation? Specifically, is there a total anticipated budget and how many total awards does NASA expect to make? How will the awards and funding be distributed across the five LEIA topic areas, will there be multiple awards per topic?

A: NASA anticipates making one to three awards within each of the five LEIA topic areas. Additional details regarding the anticipated funding distributions, total budget, overall number of awards, and any cost caps (floors or ceilings) are under consideration and may be addressed in the final solicitation. Please continue to monitor SAM.gov for the final release.

1.06 Q: Past Experience: If a new organization lacks direct corporate experience, can it use the past experience of its key personnel from previous jobs to meet qualification requirements? If not, can the experience of its partners or subcontractors be substituted?

A: NASA recognizes that new entrants often have limited past experience on government contracts. When evaluating this criterion, NASA will consider the collective relevant experience of the proposing organization, team members, subcontractors, and academic partners relative to the required effort. See Section 8.2 Evaluation Criteria of the draft Appendix A for further definition of past experience.

1.07 Q: Will role-specific past experience be evaluated based on each team member’s proposed responsibilities?

A: NASA will evaluate proposals to determine the relevance of the Offeror’s past experience per the final solicitation evaluation criteria.

1.08 Q: Are current STMD Tipping Point performers eligible for related (non-duplicative) work?

A: Yes, current STMD Tipping Point performers are eligible to propose for related non-duplicative work.

1.09 Q: When and where will Industry Day be held? Will there be a virtual attendance option available?

A: As of the posting date of this document, an Industry Day will not be held. See Section 3.4 of Draft Solicitation

1.10 Q: When does NASA expect selected awardees to begin work?

A: NASA anticipates selected awardees to begin work in the first quarter of Fiscal Year 2027.

1.11 Q: Could NASA advise the anticipated contract type (fixed price or cost-type) for the awards under this solicitation?

A: Contract type will be FFP.

1.12 Q: Given that the five technology areas are being matured in parallel toward eventual integration into a common lunar surface architecture, will the LEIA Appendix address verification of cross-system integration and interoperability among them? If so, will cross-cutting capabilities of this kind be in scope as standalone efforts, as teaming roles within prime offeror teams, or as evaluation considerations?

A: Each Topic is a separate competitive opportunity under this solicitation authority and therefore, the requirements for each Topic apply only to that Topic and are not dependent on, or relative to, the requirements of any other Topic. Accordingly, offerors should not assume that this solicitation includes a requirement or plan for cross-Topic system integration or verification.

1.13 Q: For cross-cutting capabilities not specific to a single Topic (for example, verification of interface compatibility and integration-risk reduction across independently developed subsystems), does the Government encourage or credit their inclusion as subcontractors within prime offeror teams? Would such a capability be assessed as part of a prime offeror's Technical Approach and Organizational Capability?

A: Any necessary clarifications regarding how subcontractor capabilities are assessed will be incorporated into the final solicitation.

1.14 Q: For cross-cutting capabilities not specific to any single named technology area, does the Government anticipate encouraging or crediting their inclusion as small-business subcontractors within prime offeror teams, and will the final solicitation or the planned Industry Day provide a means for prime offerors and such small businesses to identify one another?

A: NASA will review the evaluation criteria regarding cross-cutting capabilities. Any necessary clarifications regarding how subcontractor capabilities are assessed will be incorporated into the final solicitation. Additionally, NASA will not provide a means (e.g. an interested-parties or teaming list) for this solicitation however; interested parties are encouraged to utilize existing NASA-sponsored forums, such as the Lunar Surface Innovation Consortium (LSIC). This forum serves to foster collaboration among academia, industry, and government in technology development for the lunar surface (https://lsic.jhuapl.edu).

1.15 Q: Will the Final Appendix A provide a mechanism (such as an interested-parties or teaming list) by which prime offerors and cross-cutting small businesses may identify one another? If so, how would an interested small business request be listed?

A: NASA is not providing an interested-parties or teaming list for this solicitation however, Offerors are encouraged to utilize existing NASA-sponsored forums, such as the Lunar Surface Innovation Consortium (LSIC). This forum serves to foster collaboration among academia, industry, and government in technology development for the lunar surface (https://lsic.jhuapl.edu).

1.16 Q: May a single offeror submit proposals for multiple topic areas, and if so, will those proposals be evaluated independently per topic area or holistically across the offeror's full submission?

A: An eligible Offeror can only submit one proposal per topic as the prime. An eligible Offeror can be a team member (not the prime) in multiple proposals under the same topic. Each proposal will be evaluated and scored on its own merit within a topic area.

1.17 Q: How many proposals can a single company submit?

A: An Offeror can only submit one proposal per topic as the prime.

1.18 Q: Will there be a white paper or capability statement pre-screening step prior to full proposal invitation, or will the BAA proceed directly to full proposals?

A: This is a one-step proposal process; there is no pre-screening step or proposal invitation. Offerors shall submit one proposal which represents its best approach.

1.19 Q: Does NASA anticipate a follow-on opportunity for awardees for a lunar demo?

A: NASA does not currently anticipate a direct follow-on opportunity for a lunar demonstration under this effort.

1.20 Q: What is the anticipated period of performance for awards under this BAA appendix?

A: Currently, anticipated total period of performance, including options, for contract(s) awarded under this solicitation is no greater than three (3) years. See Section 6.2 of Draft Solicitation.

1.21 Q: Could you please confirm the anticipated final proposal submission deadline for this solicitation?

A: The final proposal submission deadline will be stated in the final solicitation.

Please monitor SAM.gov for the posting of the final solicitation.

1.22 Q: Given that the Final BAA has not yet been released, what is the appropriate process and timing for a prospective offeror to initiate coordination with Glenn Research Center regarding potential GTA access to materials testing and relevant environment test facilities? Is there a specific NASA Front Door intake process we should begin now, prior to the Final BAA release, to allow sufficient time for Center coordination and signature before the proposal due date?

A: Prospective Offerors seeking access to NASA resources are encouraged to initiate engagement through NASA Front Door early in their proposal development process.

Offerors are reminded that draft agreements must be received by NASA no later than the final proposal due date. See in the draft BAA, Section 3.6 Optional Government Task Agreement (GTA) Requests, Section 7.2.1.7.5 Government-Contributed Resources, and Section 7.2.1.7.6 Government Task Agreement and Center Letter of Intent, for detailed guidance and requirements.

1.23 Q: In Attachment E: Representations and Certifications, Section 52.230-1 COST

ACCOUNTING STANDARDS NOTICES AND CERTIFICATION (JAN 2026)

(DEVIATION) states "This notice does not apply to small businesses or foreign governments." Does this mean that small businesses are not required to implement specific cost accounting practices for contracts awarded from this BAA?

A: 52.230-1 does not apply to small businesses or foreign governments. Small businesses are required to follow all cost accounting practices that apply to small businesses for contract(s) awarded under this solicitation.

1.24 Q: I am having trouble applying in time because of changes that need to be made to our company registration. Would it be possible to apply now as myself as an individual and then revise the application to the company after the deadline once it’s formed?

A: All organizations must be eligible to receive a Government contract by contract award. After submission of proposals an offeror may not revise its proposal to change the entity identified as the offeror.

1.25 Q: Do you have an idea approximately when the decisions will be made for this solicitation?

A: NASA anticipates making awards decisions in the first quarter of the Government’s Fiscal Year 2027.

1.26 Q: We are applying to obtain funding to go toward paying our engineers to perfect a blueprint as well as to execute constructing it in a later phase. How do you anticipate the application of the budget going to each aspect of the project?

A: NASA does not intend to dictate a specific budget allocation between phases.

Offerors are responsible for constructing their Statement of Work (SOW) and a price proposal that aligns with their unique technical approach.

1.27 Q: The BAA mentions that FFRDCs can enter into support relationships with proposing agencies via separate agreements outside of this solicitation. Can you provide more details on the types of acceptable agreements, that would allow FFRDC to support a proposing entity?

A: It is up to the proposing organization and the FFRDC to determine which type of agreement is appropriate for their proposed effort.

1.28 Q: The five Topics mature independently toward eventual integration into a common lunar surface architecture, and each Topic's Statement of Objectives addresses interfaces within that Topic's system boundary. Can the Government clarify how verification of cross-system integration among the five technology areas is intended to be addressed: within the scope of individual Topic awards, through a subsequent solicitation or program phase, or through other Government activity? This would assist offerors in scoping their integration strategies and interface documentation appropriately.

A: Each Topic is a separate competitive opportunity under this solicitation authority and therefore, the requirements for each Topic apply only to that Topic and are not dependent on, or relative to, the requirements of any other Topic. Accordingly, offerors should not assume that this solicitation includes a requirement or plan for cross-Topic system integration or verification.

1.29 Q: Regarding the required disclosure of intent to use Artificial Intelligence during contract performance: will the Final Appendix A specify the form and content of the disclosure? In particular, may offerors describe the specific role of AI within their workflow, including the independent verification or acceptance checks that bound its use, rather than providing a yes/no indication alone? A scoped disclosure would give the Government more meaningful visibility into any risks associated with AI use.

Clarification of whether the requirement extends to subcontractors' tools would also assist teams in preparing accurate disclosures.

A: For final proposal, Offerors will not be required to disclose the use of AI during contract performance.

1.30 Q: Does the proposal for the solicitation need to be lead if it is a joint academic-industrial proposal? Does Industry lead or Academia? Or is there some other arrangement you would prefer?

A: NASA does not mandate or prefer a specific teaming structure; it is the Offeror’s responsibility to propose an arrangement that best supports their proposed effort. Any U.S. organization type, industry or educational institutions may submit a proposal as a prime to this solicitation with the exception of the organizations/individuals listed in Section 4.1 of the Draft Appendix A.

1.31 Q: Are there restrictions on the PI/Co-PI we select? Do you have any requirements for the individual we choose to fill these roles?

A: All PI/Co-PI must comply with the eligibility requirements.

1.32 Q: When is the due date for the proposal and if a white paper is due before that?

(Notice ID 80GRC026R0008), I am not sure what “No later than fourth quarter of fiscal year 2026 means”.

A: The final due date for proposals will be announced in the final solicitation. No White Papers are due for this solicitation. Fourth Quarter of fiscal year means July 1, 2026 – September 30. 2026.

1.33 Q: Can a professor and/or educational institute team with a Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) employee for this call?

A: Yes, a professor and/or educational institute can propose to team with JPL.

1.34 Q: Please confirm that the reference to Q1 fiscal year 2027 refers to the Government Fiscal Year.

A: Q1 Fiscal Year 2027, is October 1st 2026 through December 31st 2026.

1.35 Q: Is there flexibility in the period of performance for each CLIN, including overlap of each CLIN with the next CLIN?

A: Yes, there is flexibility. Offerors may propose a CLIN structure and corresponding periods of performance, including any necessary overlap that are appropriate for their specific technical approach and schedule.

1.36 Q: Is NASA going to down select which proposals to continue funding after the Base CLIN period, or will each Offeror's continuation review be evaluated independently of other Offerors such that it is possible that all initially selected awardees could complete all three CLINs for each topic?

A: The Government will determine which options to exercise for each contract individually. Therefore, it is possible for all initially selected awardees to proceed to subsequent CLINs, subject to successful performance and the availability of funds.

1.37 Q: Can NASA clarify how strongly integrated hardware demonstrations will be weighted versus modeling/theory, manufacturing maturity, or cost realism in the evaluation criteria?

A: NASA will review the evaluation criteria as stated in the final solicitation.

1.38 Q: Is NASA expecting delivery of prototype hardware to a NASA facility at the end of the contract, or does hardware remain with the contractor?

A: Currently, NASA expects hardware and demonstrated prototypes to remain contractor owned.

1.39 Q: "Phase", "CLIN" and "Period" seem to be used interchangeably throughout Section 6.1 (e.g., "Base period", "Base CLIN 0001 (Phase 1)"). Are these terms functionally synonymous within the RFP? If not synonymous, can the government provide unique definitions for the different terms?

A: Yes, for the purposes of this draft, 'Phase,' 'CLIN,' and 'Period' are generally used interchangeably to refer to the same segments of work. NASA will review and standardize this terminology for the final solicitation

1.40 Q: Given that NASA is reserving the right to do partial awards, would the government be willing to allow proposal responses that focus on advancing the TRL/MRL of a subset of objectives from a particular topic instead of requiring offerors to respond to all objectives? This will allow offerors to mature subsystems, provide NASA with the information needed for a partial award on the front end of the proposal process, and enable NASA to integrate the different subsystems to create a more optimal solution.

A: NASA will review the requirements regarding partial proposals and clarify whether addressing a subset of objectives is acceptable in the final solicitation

1.41 Q: Table of Contents lists Section H as "Special Contract Requirements" but Section H is titled "Deliveries or Performance". Will the government update the title in the document to "Special Contract Requirements"?

A: NASA will review and update the title in Section H as appropriate in the final solicitation.

1.42 Q: Will the government include a standard Government Task Agreement (GTA) form or template in the Final Appendix A release to enable offerors to submit standardized BOE data related to GTAs (e.g., government labor hours, rates, expected facilities required, facility usage rate, and facility cost rates)?

A: No, a standard GTA form or template will not be included with the Final solicitation, since forms may vary by Center. Offerors must coordinate directly with the specific NASA center(s) they intend to utilize to obtain the appropriate GTA forms.

1.43 Q: What eligibility and teaming structures are acceptable for a U.S. offeror involving foreign founders, affiliates, privately funded foreign-origin IP, or foreign technical contributors?

A: NASA is currently reviewing the restrictions regarding foreign participation for this effort. Detailed eligibility requirements and acceptable teaming structures involving foreign entities will be defined in the final solicitation.

1.44 Q: Does NASA provide a collaboration framework or a partnership matching tool that would allow us to identify potential partners that we could collaborate with?

A: NASA is not providing a collaboration framework or partnership matching tool specific to this solicitation; however, Offerors are encouraged to utilize existing NASA-sponsored forums, such as the Lunar Surface Innovation Consortium (LSIC).

This forum serves to foster collaboration among academia, industry, and government in technology development for the lunar surface (https://lsic.jhuapl.edu).

1.45 Q: Teaming and prime - Is a single legal entity allowed to submit alone, or does NASA prefer / require multi partner teams or specific small business participation?

The draft mentions full and open competition and NAICS code 541715 with small business size standard, but not mandatory teaming. If teaming is recommended, is there a specific structure of the team preferred?

A: Yes, single legal entities are allowed to submit alone. There is no mandatory teaming requirement.

1.46 Q: Can a medium-sized company (less than 2500 people) apply as a prime?

A: Yes, a company (less than 2500 people) can apply as a prime. Size of company does not impact the ability of a company to be a prime.

1.47 Q: Will the Firm‑Fixed Price (FFP) contract allow offerors to include a fee/profit margin? (Solicitation states FFP will be used).

A: Yes, the FFP contract will allow offerors to include a profit margin and needs to be included in the proposal if proposing a profit.

1.48 Q: Is cost‑share required or encouraged for any Topics or CLINs?

A: Cost share is not required.

1.49 Q: Are equipment purchases (capital equipment) allowable in the CLIN prices?

A: Funds can be used for equipment purchases.

1.50 Q: Travel – Will travel for Government insight activities (site visits, tech interchange meetings) be reimbursable under the CLINs or should proposers include travel in their budgets?

A: To be reimbursed, travel costs must be included in the proposal.

1.51 Q: NASA provide any Government Furnished Equipment (GFE), data Government Furnished Information (GFI), test facilities, or access to simulants/testbeds? If so, what are the terms and schedules for access?

A: Offerors may include requests to access Government resources. The terms and schedules for access are dependent on the resource requested and are subject to availability. See Section 3.6 of the Draft Appendix A.

1.52 Q: Please confirm that industry (non-civil) Offerors are allowed to participate in multiple proposals as a subcontractor in addition to one proposal per topic as a prime.

A: Offerors are allowed to participate in multiple proposals as a subcontractor in addition to one proposal per topic as a prime.

1.53 Q: Please clarify the definition of "alternate proposal submissions." This clarification will enable Offerors to clearly understand submittal instructions.

A: There are no alternate proposal submissions. All proposals must be submitted through NASA’s Enterprise File Sharing and Sync Box (EFSS Box), a FedRAMP Moderate certified platform.

1.54 Q: Please confirm that visual documentation (e.g., photographs or graphics) provides sufficient evidence to support Organizational Capability claims.

A: Visual documentation may support claims regarding facilities, infrastructure, equipment, partnerships, or other organizational resources.

1.55 Q: Please clarify if there is a threshold price that may trigger a request for certified cost or pricing data (there is a threshold provided in the Appendix B solicitation).

Does that apply here? What might be considered "unreasonable"? Certified cost or pricing data adds excessive administrative burden on smaller primes and, given the aggressive schedule of Appendix A, may affect the flexibility of pricing proposed and the schedule itself.

A: It is anticipated that adequate price competition will exist; therefore, the submission of certified cost or pricing data is not likely per FAR 15.403-2. However, The Government reserves the right to request certified cost or pricing data if the following scenarios occur: proposed prices appear unreasonable; there are concerns the Contractor may default; and/or if the Government does not receive two or more priced offers that satisfy the Government’s expressed requirement from two or more responsible Offerors competing independently (FAR 15.403-2(c)). The determination of unreasonableness will be made on an individual proposal basis.

1.56 Q: Please confirm that "contract start" refers to "authority to proceed" or contract signature.

A: Yes, a “contract start” refers to authority to proceed.

1.57 Q: Please clarify whether an Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI) Avoidance Plan is required for proposal submittal. Section J notes that an OCI Avoidance Plan is only required if awarded; however, Section 7.2.1.7.7 and Attachment G say that an OCI plan is required for proposal submittal. Are these different plans?

A: The OCI Avoidance Plan is required for proposal submittal and will be incorporated into the contract, if awarded.

1.58 Q: Price template requires cost breakdown - will NASA accept commercial pricing and indirect rate methodologies without detailed cost disclosure?

A: Offerors will be required to fill out price information using the price template.

1.59 Q: May NASA please provide searchable versions of the solicitation pdf files? This greatly assists Offerors with navigating and fully understanding the solicitation instructions.

A: Yes, NASA will try to provide a searchable version of the solicitation pdf files.

1.60 Q: Is the expectation that all 3 CLINs will be completed in the 3-year period?

A: Yes, the expectation is that the scope of work proposed will be performed within three years.

1.61 Q: Can the price for CLINs 2 and 3 be re-negotiated based on the results of CLIN 1 to ensure that the project has flexibility and proceeds in the appropriate direction?

A: No, the price for CLINs 2 and 3 will not be re-negotiated based on the results of

CLIN 1.

1.62 Q: Will there be future on-ramp opportunities to enhance study content and overall project capability?

A: No, Appendix A will not have future on-ramp opportunities.

1.63 Q: The solicitation states that only one proposal may be submitted per topic. How is this restriction applied? Specifically, does it limit a company from participating on multiple teams or serving as the prime contractor on more than one proposal for the same topic?

A: An eligible Offeror can only submit one proposal per topic as the prime. An eligible Offeror can be a team member (not the prime) in multiple proposals under the same topic.

1.64 Q: Does the requirement to be more than 50% owned and controlled by U.S.

nationals apply independently to all proposed subcontractors and team members, including a substantive technology subcontractor to an eligible U.S. prime?

If so, could a U.S.-incorporated subsidiary of a foreign-owned company qualify through the alternative pathway based on significant U.S. employment, investment, and performance of the proposed work in the United States?

Could involvement or formal support from a Foreign Space Agency, potentially as a government partner or through an appropriate bilateral cooperation framework, provide an additional pathway for an organization to participate?

A: Currently, NASA is reassessing the involvement of non-U.S. organizations as team members for this effort. Final eligibility criteria will be established in the final solicitation.

1.65 Q: If a US subsidiary of a foreign company is more than 50% controlled by US citizens does that meet the qualification?

A: Currently, NASA is reassessing the involvement of non-U.S. organizations as team members for this effort. Final eligibility criteria will be established in the final solicitation.

1.66 Q: Will NASA provide a mechanism for potential prime contractors, specialty subcontractors, and teaming partners to identify one another?

A: NASA will not provide a mechanism for finding partnerships specifically for this solicitation however; interested parties are encouraged to utilize existing NASA-habitation, mobility, In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU), communications, and science operations?

A: NASA will evaluate proposals based strictly on the evaluation criteria outlined in the final solicitation. Refer to Section 8 of the Draft Solicitation and the specific objectives defined in the respective SOO. Offerors should propose the technical approach they believe best meets these stated requirements.

2.07 Q: For surface infrastructure concepts, should proposers assume compatibility with Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS)-class delivery services, and if so, will NASA provide notional constraints for landed mass, volume, deployment loads, power during transit, and lander-to-payload mechanical or electrical interfaces?

A: The key design requirements and reference assumptions are addressed individually by Topic. Please refer to the respective SOO and the topic-specific Q&A sections below for further details.

2.08 Q: Can a company propose value added Lunar enabling infrastructure that’s not specifically listed in the targeted technology areas? I.e., would life support technologies maturation to a TRL of 5 or 6 be acceptable?

A: NASA will evaluate the relevance of the proposed technical effort to determine whether it meets the overall objectives and requirements of the Topic under which the proposal was submitted. A proposal failing to show relevance will receive an Unacceptable rating and be disqualified from any further evaluation for contract award.

Refer to Section 8.2 Evaluation Criteria for further details.

2.09 Q: Can you expand on the sub-technologies that might be of interest for ISRU and in-space manufacturing for the purposes of this BAA?

A: The specific objectives and areas of interest for ISRU and in-space manufacturing are defined in their respective SOO. NASA will not provide a list of sub-technologies. It is the responsibility of the Offeror to propose and justify the specific sub-technologies and technical approach that best meet the objectives outlined in the SOO.

2.10 Q: For TRL 5 to 6 maturation, what level of deployment demonstration does NASA expect: laboratory deployment, thermal-vacuum deployment, regolith simulant testing, reduced-gravity offload testing, environmental qualification, or a full integrated field demonstration?

A: Expectations regarding specific demonstration environments, testing conditions, and TRL maturation are defined by Topic within the respective SOO. Refer to the specific SOO for these details.

2.11 Q: Will NASA encourage teams that combine a prime integrator with specialized providers for power electronics, batteries, deployment mechanisms, materials, ISRU, or test facilities?

A: NASA will not comment on or encourage any specific type of teaming arrangement.

Offerors may propose the teaming structure they determine is most appropriate for their unique technical approach. It is the Offeror's responsibility to justify how their proposed team will successfully execute the proposed effort.

2.12 Q: Can demonstrations be conducted in Earth‑based facilities if test conditions and scaling arguments demonstrate relevance to lunar/cislunar environments, or do you expect specific vacuum/reduced‑gravity testing? (Draft shows both ground demonstrations and “relevant environment” testing expectations)

A: NASA is looking for a build and terrestrial ground test for Topic 1. The expected outcome of this effort is TRL 5-6 which would include simulated relevant environment testing including thermal vacuum (TVAC).

3.05 Q: Are teams expected to address all objectives within Topic 1, or can a proposal focus on only one objective?

A: Evaluations will be based on meeting all SOO.

3.06 Q: Does the Vertical Solar Arrays topic limit proposals to maturation of full, integrated array systems, or are efforts that mature critical subsystems (e.g., sun-tracking articulation and pointing control, or photovoltaic panel architectures) to TRL 5–6 for infusion into multiple system designs also within scope? We request the final Appendix state this explicitly.

A: The only items within scope of this proposal are VSAT Electrical Systems, Thermal Control and External Power Interoperability.

3.07 Q: Photovoltaic architecture scope: Does the topic restrict the photovoltaic panel technology to conventional cover glass-interconnected-cell designs, or are alternative panel architectures within scope provided the proposed effort retires the associated lunar-environment risks through the ground-based testing emphasized in this Appendix?

A: The only items within scope of this proposal are VSAT Electrical Systems, Thermal Control and External Power Interoperability. The overall system is not restricted in terms of solar cell technology, but development and validation of that subsystem is beyond the scope of this Topic.

3.08 Q: Evaluation considerations: Will the final Appendix identify specific power on a delivered-to-surface basis (W/kg) and tracking performance at low solar elevation angles as evaluation considerations for this topic?

A: No, the objectives of Topic 1 are to mature subsystems for a 10kW Class VSAT.

3.09 Q: Prior program participation: Will proposals from new entrants and small business-led teams be evaluated under the same criteria as proposals from performers holding prior or existing NASA vertical solar array development contracts?

A: All proposals will be evaluated based the same evaluation factors as stated in the final solicitation. Subsystem technologies are expected to be at TRL 4 at the time of proposal submission.

3.10 Q: Does NASA intend Topic 1 to be limited to a specific solar-energy conversion technology, or will alternative vertical solar-energy conversion technologies be considered responsive, provided they satisfy all stated functional objectives, including electrical-system integration, thermal-control resilience, standardized external power interfaces, reliability, and the required technology readiness advancement?

A: NASA will consider all energy conversion technologies as long as it meets the 10kW Class and have a standardized 120VDC standard output interface.

3.11 Q: For the vertical solar array topic, does NASA intend to allow proposals that include integrated battery energy storage, power electronics, and autonomous power management as part of a complete lunar surface power node, or should proposals focus only on the deployable solar array structure itself?

A: This Topic seeks to do more than just maturing the solar array structure. Yes, NASA will allow proposals that form a complete lunar surface power node but note the evaluation will only look at how well it satisfies the SOO

3.12 Q: For vertical solar array proposals, does NASA have preferred or threshold targets for deployed height, power output, stowed volume, total landed mass, operational lifetime, polar lighting assumptions, or survival through extended eclipse or lunar night conditions?

A: Topic 1 will be updated to specifically mention a 10kW Class VSAT system and minimum solar array starting at 10 meters from the lunar surface. Focus will be on power generation.

3.13 Q: Will NASA provide or request common interface assumptions for lunar surface power systems, including voltage levels, connectors, data protocols, physical interfaces, and dust-tolerant mating features? If NASA does not plan to prescribe detailed surface power interfaces in the Draft BAA, may proposers recommend open interface approaches or standards that would enable multi-provider lunar surface infrastructure?

A: For this BAA, NASA will not set requirements at the 120VDC interface, that will be up to the VSAT provider to make recommendations and put it into the proposal.

3.14 Q: We assume that proposers should plan for a lunar South Pole operating environment for vertical solar array concepts, including low sun angles, terrain shadowing, long-duration darkness periods, thermal cycling, regolith dust, and deployment on uneven terrain. Can you confirm?

A: Yes, confirmed. The VSAT will be primarily used at the lunar South Pole.

3.15 Q: For vertical solar arrays and other surface infrastructure demonstrations, is NASA interested in concepts in the approximate 100 to 300 kg landed mass class, or does NASA expect substantially smaller component-level demonstrations or larger integrated systems?

A: NASA considers a 10kW Class VSAT should be able to fly on a medium class lander. The VSAT needs to meet the minimum requirements from the 3 objectives and be able to produce 10kW of power at the 120VDC common interface.

3.16 Q: For vertical solar array proposals, may proposers define notional end users such as habitats, airlocks, pressurized rovers, ISRU plants, communications towers, science stations, or logistics nodes to demonstrate architectural relevance?

A: Yes, proposals can define who the end users are. NASA is considering all use cases for the VSAT, but the main use case will be to form a power grid. Note: Power conversion from 120VDC to High Voltage AC is outside the scope of this BAA.

3.17 Q: Topic 1 requires compliance with the Lunar Power Exchange Interface Requirements (EHP-10069, provided as the controlled Attachment B1). Is EHP-10069 intended to serve as the common power-exchange interface standard for all lunar surface power sources connecting to the standardized lunar microgrid, including non-solar sources, or is it specific to solar array systems? Understanding whether this interface standard is source-agnostic would help us assess how alternative surface power generation approaches would integrate with the architecture described.

A: The EHP-10069 document is source agnostic, this document will eventually be updated, but the common power of 6kW, 120VDC at up to 100m will remain.

Connecting to a lunar microgrid will involve converting 120VDC to 3000VAC, this power conversion is outside the scope of this BAA.

3.18 Q: Performance Outcomes 4.1 and 4.3: Would NASA be willing to change verifications for Performance Outcomes to allow for Demonstration and/or Analysis? Example: "4.1 Power Exchange Capability: Verify a VSAT external power exchange capability

(multiple interfaces) that operates reliably on a standardized 120 Vdc, 6-kW hardware-rated interface via demonstration and/or analysis."

A: No. In order to advance the TRL NASA will require a terrestrial Demonstration.

3.19 Q: Will NASA define the expected frequency and format of technical interchange meetings, progress reviews, demonstrations, and site visits?

A: Offerors are responsible for proposing the frequency and format of technical interchange meetings, progress reviews, demonstrations, and site visits. NASA recommends consulting the NASA NPR 7120.8 standard when developing these schedules. Once a proposal has been selected, these details will be finalized and agreed upon prior to contract award/signing.

3.20 Q: Can NASA provide the expected operational life or design-life objective (e.g., months, years, lunar day/night cycles) that should be assumed during system design and technology maturation?

A: On a mature VSAT system that is flight ready, we expect the VSAT to have a 10-year operational life at the lunar South Pole. For this BAA, a VSAT system that can survive one to multiple lunar nights will meet the minimum requirement.

3.21 Q: Section 6.3 references demonstrating compliance with the Lunar Surface External Power Exchange (LSEPE) limits, including a 120 Vdc, 6-kW capability across a 100-meter interface cable. Should offerors consider this the minimum required electrical demonstration, or are additional performance objectives anticipated? Does NASA anticipate developing or providing a standard physical and electrical interface specification beyond EHP-10069, or are offerors expected to propose candidate interface implementations consistent with the stated interoperability objectives?

A: For this BAA, NASA is not providing a specification for a physical or electrical interface beyond what is in EHP-10069. NASA expects offerors to provide their own candidate interface that meets the interoperability requirements.

3.22 Q: Should offerors assume the demonstrated prototype hardware remains contractor-owned unless otherwise specified in the resulting contract, or is delivery of prototype hardware to NASA anticipated?

A: All hardware and demonstrated prototypes will be contractor owned. This BAA is for risk buydown and TRL advancements for the Offerors.

3.23 Q: Will the Government clarify if proposals submitted under Topic 1:

Must encompass a complete, end-to-end VSAT system; or May propose alternate architectures, including subsystems for power management and distribution (PMAD) or alternate power sources (such as radioisotopes) to provide heat and low, critical systems power for operations through the lunar night?

A: Topic 1 does not request a complete end to end VSAT System. It seeks to mature the VSAT PMAD, Thermal and Interface subsystems. Offerors are free to propose work that can meet the 3 objectives of the BAA.

3.24 Q: Does NASA anticipate future solicitations, studies, or other mechanisms in the lunar surface power area suited to earlier-stage entrants developing toward these objectives?

A: Please monitor SAM.gov for any future solicitations.

3.25 Q: Objective 2 (page 1) refers to validated thermal rejection during “extreme lunar heating and darkness.”

a. What is the thermal environment specification (peak surface temperature, minimum eclipse temperature, thermal cycle rate) against which the thermal control system must be validated?

b. Will NASA provide access to the lunar South Pole thermal model used as the design reference?

c. Will NASA provide other variables that could be in the design reference, such as a reference location, solar incidence, radiation environment, etc.?

A: Refer to Sections 5.0 – 7.0 of the Lunar Thermal Analysis Guidebook (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20210010030/downloads/HLS-UG- 001%20Lunar%20Thermal%20Analysis%20Guidebook%20Baseline_STI.pdf) for general specifications and parameters of the lunar surface thermal environment. Section

9.0 provides details on development of a surface thermal model. No design reference thermal model will be provided.

3.26 Q: Does NASA have preferred or threshold targets for deployed height, stowed volume, total landed mass, operational lifetime, or eclipse duration?

A: For the scope of this BAA, a minimum height of 10m from lunar surface is expected for bottom of the solar array. An eclipse duration of 350hrs is the threshold.

3.27 Q: Would NASA consider a proposed demonstration of the solar array powering other surface infrastructure from the lunar ecosystem, e.g., a communications relay, habitat node, or airlock?

A: This demonstration is not necessary but if done, will not impact the evaluation.

3.28 Q: Should the Vertical Solar Array system (array plus batteries and/or any associated hardware) be installed in a permanent location or capable of relocation?

A: No preference, it can be both Stationary and/or Mobile.

3.29 Q: What astronaut interactions does NASA expect with the array and associated hardware?

A: Minimal to None. Most likely scenario is robotic mate/de-mate of connections.

3.30 Q: Would concepts addressing thermal control resiliency for both the VSAT and interconnected elements be applicable for development within this objective?

A: Only the thermal control resiliency within the VSAT system will be considered.

3.31 Q: SOO, Topic #1: Can NASA clarify what is meant by “system-level demonstrations in relevant ground environments”? Does this mean the subsystems matured and developed under the proposal must be integrated into a full representative VSAT prototype (structure, mechanisms, solar array, avionics, etc.) and tested in a relevant environment? Or could the subsystem be tested by itself under representative operating conditions in a relevant environment?

A: The subsystem can be tested by itself under representative operating conditions in a relevant environment. However, demonstration of the full VSAT system in a relevant environment will be preferred.

3.32 Q: SOO, Topic #1, Objective #1: Can NASA clarify what “end-to-end electrical system integration” means? Does “integration” mean designing and connecting all electrical components to create a subsystem for test? Or does it mean taking that electrical system and integrating it into a full VSAT system (structure, mechanisms, solar array, avionics, etc.) for test?

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20210010030/downloads/HLS-UG-001%20Lunar%20Thermal%20Analysis%20Guidebook%20Baseline_STI.pdf https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20210010030/downloads/HLS-UG-001%20Lunar%20Thermal%20Analysis%20Guidebook%20Baseline_STI.pdf

A: It should be the full electrical system for the VSAT, but it does not need to be integrated into the full VSAT system for a demonstration. However, a full VSAT system integration and demonstration is preferred.

3.33 Q: SOO, Topic #1, Objective #2: Is NASA’s intent for proposers to develop thermal control and rejection systems and test them within a full VSAT system (structure, mechanisms, solar array, avionics, etc.)? Or can proposers validate predicted performance of the thermal control and rejection system via a subsystem test in a relative environment?

A: Proposers can validate the thermal control and heat rejection in a subsystem test in a relative environment. However, a full VSAT system integration and demonstration is preferred.

3.34 Q: SOO, Topic #1, Objective #3: Please confirm mechanical dust-tolerant external interface development and validation is within the scope of this objective.

A: No, dust tolerant external interface is not within the scope of this BAA, but the proposal can include it.

3.35 Q: SOO, Topic #1, Section 4.1: Please confirm if external power exchange capability shall be bidirectional as referenced in EHP-10069.

A: No. The 120VDC at 6kW only needs to be one direction, which is output from the VSAT to a load.

3.36 Q: Electrical System Maturation

• “resolve existing vulnerabilities regarding power quality, reliability, redundancy, and monitoring/control.”

• Is it possible to add any detail on these existing vulnerabilities?

• Are there specific measurable metrics to evaluate these features?

A: No specific vulnerabilities are provided but it is expected that vendors state specifically what they will be addressing and metrics that will be used to evaluate their maturation.

3.37 Q: Thermal Control Resiliency

• “survival and operational temperature limits during periods of extreme solar heating and lunar darkness.”

• Can the survival and operational temperature limits be specified?

A: The survival and operational limits will depend on the VSAT suppliers system requirement as a whole. No limits are specified beyond the environment as indicated in the Lunar Thermal Analysis Guidebook. Limits on specific hardware will depend on the design and should be indicated by the proposer.

3.38 Q: External Power Interoperability

• Please provide clarity on how interoperability is defined.

• Provide clarity on level and type of interoperability (connection, power, control, fault handling, etc.)

• How is the interoperability expected to be demonstrated?

• Is the external power interface defined (e.g., voltage level, connector/interface specification)?

A: Interoperability is defined as having a standardized 120V power exchange interface that meets the power quality standards of EHP-10069. There will be a standardized interface on the VSAT along with a standardized connector that is used to mate to the interface. The requirements/ICD/IRD for this connector are still in development by

NASA. The VSAT will be responsible for implementing the interface side of this connection into their system.

3.39 Q: 4.1 – Power Exchange Capability

• Is 120Vdc input from benchtop power supply sufficient for capability demonstration?

• Can the required power interfaces be further defined (e.g., single source/single load versus multiple sources and loads)?

A: As currently written, the EHP-10069 spec defines power quality for single source to single load per 6kW interface, but the VSAT may have multiple 6kW interfaces, each connecting up to a single load. The VSAT would be supplying a 120V output in this architecture, rather than receiving an input.

3.40 Q: Attachment A1 targets maturation of existing subsystems from TRL 4 to TRL 5-6, which favors offerors with established VSAT hardware. Does NASA anticipate future solicitations, studies, or other mechanisms in the lunar surface power area suited to earlier-stage entrants developing toward these objectives?

A: At this stage, there are no plans to solicit lower TRLs for the 10kW class VSAT.

There may be solicitations for lower TRL at a later date for higher Class VSAT 50kW+.

3.41 Q: May offerors include planning for array placement, cable routing, deployment access, maintenance access, safety zones, and interfaces with habitats, ISRU systems, and mobility assets?

A: This is not part of the solicitation and will not be part of evaluation and consideration.

3.42 Q: May Topic 1 proposals address the relationship between vertical solar arrays and broader lunar power-distribution networks?

A: This is not part of the solicitation and will not be part of evaluation and consideration.

3.43 Q: Are lunar site planning and surface-infrastructure integration allowable activities under Topic 1?

A: This is not part of the solicitation and will not be part of evaluation and consideration.

3.44 Q: For vertical solar arrays and other surface infrastructure demonstrations, is NASA interested in concepts in the approximate 100, 200, or 300 kg landed mass class, or does NASA expect substantially smaller component-level demonstrations or larger integrated systems?

A: For demonstrations of 10kW Class VSAT, NASA is looking at medium size landers.

300+kg.

3.45 Q: Is the extensibility to higher power levels expected to be demonstrated through hardware testing, or is analysis and modeling using the baseline test results sufficient to satisfy this objective?

A: This solicitation only needs to achieve the 120vDC objective through hardware testing. For higher power levels, if included as an option, it will also need to be demonstrated through hardware testing.

ensure this, but different systems will have a different minimum operational scale.

Proposers must state and justify the selected scale in this context.

4.04 Q: Given that Attachment A2, Section 5.2.3 states that "upstream excavation and size sorting systems" are out of scope, could the government change Attachment B2, Section

1.11.1 from "The selected particle size shall be appropriate for the proposed extraction process" to "Selected particle size distribution shall be identified as part of the proposal" or "The particle size distribution shall be... "?

A: Different approaches to oxygen extraction and regolith feed systems may have different particle size restrictions. The developers are expected to define the particle size appropriate to their approach and conduct the testing accordingly. This would then be an interface requirement for any future efforts to integrate upstream systems.

4.05 Q: For the integrated process flow and 48-hour continuous operation demonstrations, are brief pauses for calibration or safety checks permitted as long as they are accounted for in metrics?

A: The intent of this time constraint is to begin to address lunar operation conditions and concept of operations. Any interruptions to this time must be justified in terms of flight-forward operation.

4.06 Q: Are the 10 metric ton per year scalable throughput objective and the 1 metric ton per year pilot-scale demonstration both required, or may Offerors satisfy one with analytic scaling to the other?

A: The system must be scalable to 10 MT O2/yr without necessitating a change in technology(s). 1 MT O2/yr is a suggested target to ensure this, but different systems will have a different minimum operational scale. Proposers must state and justify the selected scale in this context and can use analytical models to indicate what a 10MT O2/yr system would look like in terms of Objective 4.

4.07 Q: Should waste stream and product stream characterization data include only system output measurements, or are pre- and post-processing sample analyses also expected?

A: The performance metrics in Appendix B2 sections 1.4.1 and 1.5.1 indicate that extraction efficiency and yield are required metrics, which supposes an understanding of how much of the available oxygen was extracted.

4.08 Q: Does NASA expect the Offeror to procure and provide the regolith simulant and feed hopper, or will any NASA-furnished simulant be available for the demonstration?

A: NASA furnished equipment is not provided. Appendix B2 section 1.11.1 states that offerors are responsible for simulant.