Responses to Questions for NextSTEP-3 BAA Appendix A LEIA - Batch 2.pdf

1.04 Q: Team structure: Would NASA consider a structure acceptable in which a U.S.

small business serves as the prime contractor and technology developer, a university participates as a subcontractor/academic partner for experimental and materials-characterization activities, and KSC provides Government-contributed technical and facility resources through a GTA?

A: Refer to Section 4.1 Eligibility of Offerors of the Solicitation, which provides the applicable requirements regarding team composition and participation of other entities.

1.05 Q: Background intellectual property: If the prime contractor’s proposed technology is based on pre-existing, patent-pending Background IP for which the Government already possesses certain Government-use rights, would KSC participation through a GTA create any additional Government rights in that Background IP, or would additional rights generally be limited to subject inventions, technical data, software, or other intellectual property developed under the LEIA contract/GTA, subject to the applicable contract clauses?

A: NASA obtains Unlimited Rights in all data that are first produced under a NASA contract, consistent with FAR 52.227-14. By contrast, when data were developed under another federal agency’s contract—such as DoW—prior to NASA’s contract, NASA respects those data rights fixed by that originating contract. NASA respects all proper restrictive markings, including Government Purpose Rights, Limited Rights, and Restricted Rights, and does not seek to expand or convert those rights into Unlimited Rights.

As a result, NASA’s position is that it only obtains Unlimited Rights in NASA-first-produced data and accepts less-than-unlimited rights when data originate from other Government contracts. However, those rights must be clearly defined and detailed under the Pre-Award Data Rights Assertion (DRAT).

1.06 Q: Can a University Affiliated Research Center (UARC) propose as a prime and/or be a team member?

A: Yes, a UARC can propose as a prime and/or a team member.

1.07 Q: Attachment F. We see that Attachment F is completed by the Offeror and each teaming partner. Several of its questions, such as for-profit status, U.S. ownership and control, and U.S. market commitment, seem geared toward commercial firms. If a U.S. university or nonprofit research institution submits as the prime Offeror, could you let us know which portions of Attachment F we should complete?

A: All Primes and Team Members regardless of their for-profit status should fully fill out Attachment F.

1.08 Q: Data rights on background technology. Under Section 6, restrictions on data rights must demonstrate a significant net benefit to the Government. For technology developed at private expense or under prior Government contracts before this effort, will assertions of limited rights in the Pre-Award Data Rights Assertion Table be evaluated as a weakness, or are such assertions expected and evaluated only for their effect on the Government’s ability to use the deliverables?

A: The Pre-Award Data Rights Assertion Table (DRAT) is not numerically scored nor receives an adjectival rating, thus it will not receive a finding of a strength or weakness.

However, risk identified in the DRAT will be presented to the Source Selection Authority.

1.09 Q: Non-separable designation. Section 11.3.3 requires offerors to specify whether a proposal is offered as a non-separable package of work. In which proposal section should that designation be stated, and does a non-separable designation affect eligibility for partial selection at a reduced period of performance?

A: The designation of non-separable package of work should be included in the technical proposal. If an Offeror were to state that work was non-severable NASA would likely not seek to make a partial award for the non-severable work.

1.10 Q: Long-lead option treatment. Under §9.1.1, is the Long-Lead Procurement Option CLIN included in the total evaluated price, and may it be proposed in support of the first priced Option CLIN as well as later options?

A: Yes, the Long-Lead Procurement Option CLIN is included in the total evaluated price. It may be proposed in support of the first priced Option CLIN as well as later options.

1.11 Q: Will the Government accept a CUI-marked proposal, specifically Past Experience and Technical Proposal Sections? If so, what transmission method (EFSS Box, encrypted email, password protected files, etc.) is preferred suitable for CUI authorized for distribution to NASA?

A: All proposals are required use NASA’s Enterprise File Sharing and Sync Box (EFSS Box) for proposal submission. NASA’s EFSS Box is approved for documents that contain CUI information/data. See Section 10.1 Instructions for Electronic Submission of Proposals.

1.12 Q: We are currently planning to establish a U.S. company. Could you clarify the eligibility requirements applicable to a newly formed entity with an international founding team, including any ownership or place-of-performance conditions, the timing of SAM registration, and arrangements for international technical partners?

A: All organizations must be eligible to receive a Government contract by contract award and meet the eligibility requirements set forth in section 4 of the solicitation.

After submission of proposals an offeror may not revise its proposal to change the entity identified as the offeror.

1.13 Q: Attachment J- DRD Title Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI) Plan: Item 10, requires offerors to provide a list of NASA contracts and subcontracts currently being performed and those performed within the past five years, while also stating that the information is intended to assist the Contracting Officer in understanding work that "may give rise to an actual or potential conflict.". Please confirm whether offerors must disclose every NASA contract/subcontract during the stated period, or only those NASA contracts/subcontracts that the Offeror has identified as giving rise to an actual or potential OCI in connection with this procurement.

A: Yes, Offeror must provide a list of all the prime’s and proposed subcontractor(s)’s NASA contracts and subcontracts currently being performed and contracts performed within the last five years of the release of this solicitation.

1.14 Q: Attachment J- DRD Title Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI) Plan: The language in item 11 (non-NASA Federal contracts) states “work currently performing or have performed that may give rise to an actual or potential conflict”, will the government please confirm that the non-NASA list should be provided for only those contracts that “the Offeror has identified as giving a rise to an actual or potential conflict”?

A: Yes, for item 11 the Prime Offeror only has to identify any non-NASA federal contracts and subcontracts that it or its proposed subcontractors are currently performing or have performed in the five years preceding the release of the solicitation that may give rise to an OCI.

1.15 Q: Attachment C - Model Contract; Section H, Clause 1852.235-71, Essential Personnel and Facilities The clause contains the instruction, "[List here the personnel and/or facilities considered essential, unless they are specified in the contract Schedule]," however the field is not designated as either [OFI] or [TBD].

The solicitation directs offerors to complete [OFI] fields and not complete [TBD] fields. Please clarify whether offerors are required to populate the essential personnel/facilities list within the Model Contract submitted with the proposal, or whether the Government intends to complete this information prior to award.

A: Offerors are not required to populate essential personnel/facilities within the Model Contract submitted with the proposal; those will be populated prior to contract award. Offerors are to list essential personnel/facilities in their technical proposal.

1.16 Q: Per “Final_Request_for_Proposal_(RFP)_Cover_Letter.pdf”, Page 1, identifies an anticipated November 2026 award date with immediate contract effectiveness.

For pricing and milestone purposes, should offerors assume a November 1, 2026 start date, or a different date for pricing purposes?

A: No, the Offerors should not assume a start date of the November 1, 2026. The government is currently anticipating contract award during the second quarter of the government fiscal year 2027 (January 1, 2027 – March 31, 2027).

1.17 Q: Per “NextSTEP-3_Appendix_A_-_Final_Solicitation.pdf”, Section 9.2; Page 12, it states, “The anticipated total period of performance, including options, for contracts awarded under this solicitation is no greater than three (3) years.”

However, per “Attachment_D_-_Pricing_Template.xlsx” it includes pricing across FY2027 through FY2030. Will the Government please clarify if offerors should propose a three-year period of performance spanning portions of four fiscal years, or whether NASA anticipates performance through the end of FY2030?

A: FY2027 –FY2030 is included on the price template because for example, if a contract was awarded on November 15, 2026 (FY 2027) and had a PoP of 3 years the end date of that contract would be November 15, 2029 (FY2030). Offeror should propose the PoP that makes the most sense for their effort that is no greater than 3 years.

1.18 Q: Will the Government please clarify if FY27, FY28, FY29, and FY30 in Attachment D refers to U.S. Government fiscal years or another fiscal/calendar year conversion?

NASA expecting offerors to provide their own candidate interface that only addresses those three variables?

A: Offerors should provide a candidate interface that addresses those three variables and is in compliance with EHP-10069.

2.04 Q: In terms of the 100m cable, would any payload data/telemetry sent over the cable to a payload be in scope, or is the cable strictly to be assumed used for power transfer?

A: For the purpose of the requirements of Topic 1, the cable would be strictly power transfer.

2.05 Q: Is battery development considered in scope for the effort? This could include evaluation of new cell chemistries and cell architectures to create a battery packing meeting 120V output requirements; the battery will be an integral part of any VSAT PMAD system.

A: Battery development is not considered in scope or a focus of Topic 1.

2.06 Q: Does NASA require proposed technologies to be at a TRL 4 at time of proposal submission, or will NASA consider proposals with technology elements at a lower TRL at time of proposal submission given there is a credible path to TRL4 before proposed contract start?

A: NASA does not require technology to be at a TRL 4 at time of proposal submission. NASA will consider proposals with technology elements at lower TRL at proposal submission.

2.07 Q: Will NASA award scope and funding in Appendix A for the design, assembly and test of the deployable solar array structure demonstration prototype portion of the

VSAT?

A: No, the design, assembly and test of the deployable solar array structure of a VSAT system is not in scope of Appendix A.

2.08 Q: May offerors use laboratory emulation (programmable sources, bidirectional supplies, etc.) to represent interfacing lunar assets and portions of a power source, provided flight-representative hardware is used for the subsystems being matured?

A: Yes.

2.09 Q: Is cable deployment or placement within scope, or is Outcome 4.3 limited to electrical stability validation across a 100-meter interface cable?

A: Cable deployment/placement is beyond the scope of Topic 1 requirements for Appendix A.

2.10 Q: Outcome 4.1 requires demonstration of a power exchange capability with multiple interfaces. Is there a minimum number of interfaces NASA expects demonstrated?

A: A minimum of 2 (two) interfaces are expected.

2.11 Q: EHP-10069 Section 3.2 states that bidirectional exchange requires adherence to all EPS and EPCE requirements via a single connector. Do SOO Objective 3 and Outcome 4.1 require offerors to demonstrate bidirectional exchange, or is transmit only compliance sufficient?

A: Transmit only is expected for this effort.

structural Component Applications. Manufacturing approaches to Objective 1-3 may include biological processes or catalysts, so long as the application is not catalysis or biomedical. Note that for Objective 2 and 3 sections 4.2.3 and 4.3.3 outcomes include “Market research supported analysis of the supply chain for the target innovative nanomaterials at quantities and performance levels consistent with the envisaged application.”.

7.02 Q: Does Topic 5 contemplate terrestrial production of nanomaterials supplied for lunar and deep-space use, or does NASA require the production process itself to operate in a lunar or in-space environment?

A: Topic 5 anticipates terrestrial production of nanomaterials.

7.03 Q: Where a company's production technology is at TRL 5–6 but its material has not yet been characterized against lunar environmental conditions, does the TRL 5–6 threshold apply to the production system, to material performance in a relevant space environment, or to both?

A: Topic 5 anticipates terrestrial production of nanomaterials. Objective 1 of Topic 5 Statement of Objectives identifies a Manufacturing Readiness Level (MRL) target of

5. The MRL target relates to the manufacture of materials with the performance outcomes listed in section 4.1.