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

Responses to Questions for Next Space Technologies for Exploration Parnterships-3 (NextSTEP-3) Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) Appendix A: Lunar Enabling

Infrastructure Accelerator (LEIA) - Final Solicitation – Batch 3

** To facilitate timely responses, questions will be released in batches.**

Note: NASA strives to provide answers to as many questions as possible. NASA has reviewed and considered all questions that were timely and relevant to the purpose of the Q/A. As stated in the Cover Letter of the Solicitation: NASA will not provide evaluations, opinions, or recommendations regarding any suggested approaches or concepts if they were solicited. In the event of a discrepancy between the draft, any questions and answers posted, and the final solicitation, the final solicitation (and any potential amendments to the final) are the controlling documents for this effort.

1. PROGRAMMATIC/CONTRACT

ID QUESTION & ANSWER (Q&A)

1.01 Q: The Final Model Contract changed the CLIN Structure table entries from "[OFI]" to "[TBD]," but the instructions continue to direct the Offeror to provide the list of items/services and map SOW tasks to the proposed CLINs/SLINs.

Question: Should offerors complete the CLIN Structure table and propose CLINs/SLINs in their submissions, or does the Government intend to establish and populate the CLIN structure after proposal submission? If offerors are not expected to complete the table, please clarify what information should be provided to satisfy the requirements of Section B.

A: Offerors are not required to fill out the Contract Line-Item Number (CLIN) Structure in the model contract this will be filled out prior to contract award. The Offeror should propose the CLIN structure in the work plan.

1.02 Q: Per “NextSTEP-3_Appendix_A_-_Final_Solicitation.pdf”, Section 10.2.1.7.7;

Page 20, requires offerors seeking Government Task Agreements (GTAs) to submit separate GTA request packages, including supporting BOEs. It is unclear how these requests relate to the GTA line item included in Attachment D, tab (3) CLIN Price.

Will the Government please clarify if offerors should include anticipated GTA costs in Attachment D pricing or if GTA requests will be evaluated separately of the proposed contract price.

A: On Attachment D the offeror should include the total GTA price by FY per CLIN. The costs associated with the proposed GTA will be considered in relation to the availability of funding and will not be evaluated as part of the price reasonableness evaluation.

1.03 Q: Will the Government please clarify how GTAs will be considered during proposal evaluation if one Offeror proposes GTAs and related costs, while another Offeror does not. How will those differences be evaluated to ensure consistent evaluations of proposals?

A: The inclusion of a GTA in a proposal does not by itself constitute a strength or a weakness. Narratives of the proposed NASA resources to be authorized through GTAs included in the technical proposal will be evaluated in accordance with the criteria established for the applicable sub-factors.

1.04 Q: The solicitation establishes a 135-page limitation for the Business Volume while also stating in Section 10.2.1 that proposal attachments are to be submitted as separate files. Several Business Volume requirements appear to require standalone documents (e.g., Model Contract, OCI Plan, Reps & Certs, and other contractual or compliance attachments). Please confirm which documents are included in the 135-page Business Volume limitation and which documents, if any, may be submitted as separate attachments and excluded from the page count.

A: All of these stand-alone documents are included in the 450-page limit for the business volume.

1.05 Q: Will the Government confirm how exactly we are to provide our response to this solicitation? With the BAA superseding the Omnibus direction, Section 10 of the final BAA provides only two document title requirements in 10.1, but Table 10.2.1-1 refers to a Technical Proposal, Price Volume, and a Business Volume. Given that the Price Volume is a separate document, should the Business Volume also be a separate document?

A: Offerors can separate their business volume from their technical proposal if they desire. The example of acceptable individual file names are examples.

1.06 Q: For a U.S. subcontractor or team member identified in the original proposal, what level of commitment or documentation is required at proposal submission (e.g., Letter of Commitment, teaming agreement, statement of work, and/or pricing information)?

A: No formal letter of commitment is required for U.S. subcontractor or team members.

1.07 Q: Section 4.1 states that national laboratories and Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs) may participate as team members and that support relationships between these entities and the prime are permitted through separate agreements outside this solicitation. Could NASA clarify whether work performed by a national laboratory or FFRDC team member may be funded through the prime contractor’s LEIA award, or whether such work must be funded through a separate mechanism?

A: Any support by NASA JPL shall be provided through a GTA. Work performed by other FFRDC or national laboratory team members may be funded through the prime contractor’s LEIA award.

1.08 Q: Regarding the page limits in Table 10.2.1-1: Section 10.2.1.5.2 states that the Milestones and Deliverables table will be placed in the SOW before contract award and "will not count against the page limit of the SOW" - as the table is required within the Overall Execution Approach subsection, please confirm whether the table is also excluded from the 8-page Overall Execution Approach limit, and whether it should be submitted as a separate attachment.

A: The Milestones and Deliverables table does count toward the 8-page limit of the Overall Execution Approach; However, it will not count against the SOW for which it is the intent of the Government to place the table inside the SOW before contract award.

1.09 Q: Please confirm when any such negotiation of rights would occur. Specifically, please confirm that it would take place prior to award, based on the offeror's assertions in the Pre-Award Data Rights Assertion Table (DRAT) under the Combined Clause in Section H, and that the resulting terms would be incorporated into the contract at award (e.g., through the purposes listed in the Limited Rights Notice or a collateral agreement incorporated in the contract, as contemplated by FAR 52.227-14), rather than through a separate license agreement negotiated after award.

A: Yes, the Pre-Award Data Rights Assertion Table (DRAT) under the Combined Clause in Section H, if necessary, would be negotiated prior to contract award and the resulting terms would be incorporated into the contract at award.

1.10 Q: Will proposals that identify limited rights data or restricted computer software in the Pre-Award DRAT be evaluated less favorably than proposals that do not? If so, please describe how such assertions will be weighted in the evaluation.

A: No, proposals that identify limited rights data or restricted computer software in the Pre-Award DRAT will not be evaluated less favorably than proposals that do not.

1.11 Q: Please confirm which Business Volume documents should be included in the single searchable PDF file and which should be separate files. Please confirm how the 135-page limit applies to the separate files.

A: The page limit is 450 for the entire business volume.

1.12 Q: Reference: Appendix A, 10.2.1.4 (Section III - Past Experience) requests relevant projects "completed within the last five (5) years". 11.2.3 (Proposal Review Information, Past Experience) refers to experience that "must have been performed within the last (5) years.". Question/clarification: Please confirm if an ongoing project is eligible as a past experience reference.

A: The Government will accept contracts, agreements or internal research and development projects completed within the last five (5) years. Ongoing efforts that have not been completed should not be included in past experience.

1.13 Q: Reference: Appendix A, 11.2.4.1.1 (Proposal Review Information, Technology Maturation) states, "Although Offerors may propose to enter at any maturity level, higher merit will be given to proposed solutions that demonstrate more advanced maturity that aligns with these targeted levels." Each Topic (1-5) SOO indicates a specific TRL or MRL for that objective.

Question/clarification: Please clarify if offerors should constrain their proposed technologies to the TRL/MRL identified in each SOO.

A: Offerors may propose to enter at any maturity level, higher merit will be given to proposed solutions that demonstrate more advanced maturity that aligns with the targeted start and end TRL/MRL levels of the SOO. It is the Offerors responsibility to propose the TRL/MRL that best supports their best proposed efforts.

1.14 Q: Reference: Appendix A, 10.2.1.7.9 (eligibility Certification and Supplemental Information) indicates that "The Offeror and each of the Offeror’s partners listed in the proposal’s Teaming Arrangement that will be supporting partner’s research and technology development efforts shall complete Attachment F." Appendix A,

10.2.1.7.10 (Foreign Participation) states, "If the proposal includes international team members, the Offeror shall complete Attachment G."

Question/clarification: Please clarify if a permitted non-U.S. partners should complete Attachment G and Attachment F or just Attachment F.

A: A permitted non-U.S. partner should complete both Attachment G and Attachment F.

1.15 Q: Reference: On the Attachment D Pricing Template, the only location for input of Subcontractor’s price is on worksheet (3) CLIN Price. If a prime uses a Total Cost Input (TCI) base, they must add General and Administrative (G&A) cost to the subcontractor's cost, material cost, other direct cost and travel cost.

Question/clarification: On the CLIN Price worksheet there is no ability for a Prime to add G&A cost to the subcontractors cost, material cost, other direct cost and travel cost, Please advise.

A: The Government assumes that G&A costs will be included in each applicable line item.

1.16 Q: Is there a limit to or recommendation for the number of essential personnel offerors should include in section IV of the proposal submission?

A: There is no limit for the number of essential personnel.

1.17 Q: For proposals from U.S. organizations that include non-U.S. team members and require Letters of Commitment from the funding agency, please clarify the following: How should Offerors request a Letter of Commitment and how will they be provided (e.g., from what Government organization or entity)? Are Offerors required to submit the letters with the proposal or is it sufficient for the process to have started, as necessary?

A: It is upon the Offeror and their non-U.S. team member to identify the means of requesting a Letter of Commitment from the foreign agency. In accordance with Solicitation section 10.2.1.7.10 Foreign Participation, if the proposal includes international team members the Offeror shall include a Letter(s) of Commitment.

1.18 Q: Will all non-applicable clauses be removed from the awarded Contract (i.e.

Government Property, Small Business, etc. clauses removed if Government Property is not being used, or the awarded entity is not a small business)?

A: Yes, non-applicable clauses will be removed prior to contract award. Primes may take exception to non-applicable clauses.

1.19 Q: Will the Government forgo the Price evaluation described in 11.2.5 of the Solicitation if and when adequate competition is achieved?

A: No, the Government will not forgo the Price evaluation described in 11.2.5.

1.20 Q: Can you confirm that an institution is limited to submit one proposal per topic.

(Or is this not an institutional limit but a limit via an individual faculty member?)

A: An institution is limited to submit one proposal per topic as the prime.

1.21 Q: Given Q&A 1.36 (no down-select) and Q&A 1.61 (option prices locked), what triggers a "no continuation" outcome?

A: NASA will determine whether to exercise any Option based on the results of the continuation review, continued mission or programmatic need, availability of funds, technical progress, risk, and other factors determined relevant by the Government.

1.22 Q:The Final RFP contains three internal cross-reference errors that create compliance ambiguity:

a. §10.2.1.5.3 directs Offerors to "Section 7.1" for CLIN structure instructions → correct location is §9.1.

b. §3.2 and §3.3 point to "Section 9.1"/"Section 7.1" for electronic submission instructions → correct location is §10.1.

c. §11.3 references "Sections 10.2.1 or 10.2.2" for unacceptable ratings → correct references are §11.2.2 (Proposal Relevance) and §11.2.3 (Past Experience).

Please confirm the intended references or issue an amendment.

A: The Solicitation was corrected for cross-reference errors.

1.23 Q: For forms that are not executable formats are “wet” fill-ins be acceptable?

A: Yes.

1.24 Q: When does the government anticipate contract performance to begin?

A: During the second quarter of the Government Fiscal Year 2026 (January 2027 – March 31, 2027).

1.25 Q: Attachment G Item 4 certifies that no NASA funding will be used for foreign R&D effort. If a foreign entity provides IP heritage, is consulted on prior work, or shares data but is not funded by NASA under this contract, does Attachment G still need to be executed? Where is the threshold between "team member" and "consulted party"?

A: Any organization performing under the contract during contract performance is required to fill out Attachment G.

1.26 Q: For the offeror-proposed CLINs, will NASA provide an option to allow for a demonstration flight of the proposed design and technology if it meets budget and timeline constraints?

A: Yes, Offeror’s may propose a technology demonstration necessary to accomplish their technical approach within the resources requested.

1.27 Q: Cover p.2 ¶2a permits non-US organizations as team members, but Attachment F (Eligibility Certification) Q3/Q4 still contains the >50% US-national ownership test, and Att F p.1 says the certification applies to "the Offeror AND each of the Offeror's partners in the Teaming Arrangement supporting partner's research and technology development efforts." Please confirm: does the Q3/Q4 gate apply to (a) only the US prime, (b) the prime AND all US-organized R&D subs, or (c) every teaming partner including non-US team members? For a non-US team member added under the new §4.1 allowance, is Attachment G alone sufficient?

A: The Offeror and each of the Offeror’s partners listed in the proposal’s Teaming Arrangement that will be supporting partner’s research and technology development efforts shall complete Attachment F. All Prime Offerors must be a U.S. organization.

Participation by non-U.S. organizations is permitted as a subcontractor/team member.

1.28 Q: The new clause requires a separate CLIN, NF 533 reporting, and itemized invoicing for tangible property ≥$1M with ≥2-yr life if NASA takes ownership as a deliverable. For a Topic 2 integrated O₂-from-regolith ground demonstration system delivered to NASA at contract completion, is NASA planning to take ownership? If so, must the hardware CLIN(s) be separated from R&D CLINs across all three phases?

A: NF 533 is not required for this effort as it is firm fixed price. NASA does not plan to take ownership of the demonstrated system for Topic 2.

1.29 Q: The Long-Lead CLIN allows Government-preferred title transfer if the successor CLIN is not exercised. Please confirm: (a) what constitutes "Government-preferred"

— is it a right-of-first-refusal, an automatic transfer, or negotiated at time of non-exercise? (b) is the transferred hardware then re-invoiced or absorbed?

A: It is the Government’s preference to take full ownership and title of the item procured through a Long-Lead Procurement Option CLIN in the event the subsequent Option CLIN is not exercised. The Government will negotiate the ownership of long-lead procurement items prior to award.

1.30 Q: 9.1.1 states the Long-Lead Procurement Option CLIN supports "a subsequent CLIN." Please confirm: (a) may the Long-Lead CLIN support the Base CLIN itself, or is it strictly limited to supporting Option CLINs? (b) if strictly Option-CLIN-supporting, are procurements that span Base + Option scope (e.g., simulant used in Base CLIN validation testing AND Option CLIN integrated demo) eligible for the Long-Lead CLIN mechanism?

A: The Long-Lead Procurement Option CLINs should be reserved for supporting a subsequent CLIN.

1.31 Q: Please confirm: (a) does NASA GRC contracting have a house preference on SLINs vs whole-CLIN partitioning for FFP R&D BAA awards? (b) would an Offeror proposing SLINs within a Priced Option CLIN (e.g., to enable partial exercise under funding constraints) be viewed favorably, neutrally, or unfavorably under §11.2.4.1.3.

A: No, NASA GRC contracting have a house preference on SLINs vs whole-CLIN partitioning for FFP R&D BAA awards. Offerors proposing SLINs within a Price Option CLIN in of itself would not viewed favorably or unfavorably under 11.2.4.1.3.

1.32 Q: Model Contract §I contains FAR 52.217-8 with the option-exercise notice period marked as [TBD]. (a) Please provide the intended notice period. (b) Given that period, does NASA have a preferred timing convention for the CLIN Continuation Review relative to CLIN end (e.g., 60–90 days prior), so Offerors can align continuation-review completion + NASA's exercise decision + funding action + 52.217-9 notice within the outgoing CLIN's PoP?

A: Offerors are free to propose a timeline for continuation reviews that suits their efforts, this will be negotiated and finalized prior to contract award.

1.33 Q: 4.1.1 restricts activity with China consistent with the CJS Appropriations Act.

Please confirm the scope of "activity with China" for the following cases: (a) Purchase of Chinese-manufactured COTS equipment (commodity test instruments, integrated circuits, PCB assemblies, general lab equipment) from a US distributor for development activities not delivered to NASA; (b) Inclusion of Chinese-origin subassemblies, components, or integrated circuits in delivered integrated demonstration hardware; (c) Whether §4.1.1 is triggered by items (a) or (b), or only by direct contractual, R&D-collaborative, or personnel-flow relationships with Chinese entities.

A: In accordance with solicitation section 4.1.1 Assurance of Compliance – China Funding Restriction, proposals must not include bilateral participation, collaboration, or coordination with China or any Chinese-owned company or entity, whether funded or performed under a no-exchange-of funds arrangement. By submission of a proposal, Offerors are certifying that the proposing organization has read and is in compliance with all the Certifications, Assurances, and Representations, including that proposals must not include bilateral participation, collaboration, or coordination with China or any Chinese-owned company or entity, whether funded or performed under a no-exchange-of funds arrangement.

1.34 Q: Recommended practice is to schedule each CLIN's Continuation Review 60-90 days before CLIN end, so NASA's exercise decision + funding action + 52.217-9 notice have room to complete before CLIN PoP expires. Does NASA have a preferred timing convention for Continuation Review relative to CLIN end? A stated preference reduces ambiguity for all offerors.

A: Offerors are free to propose a timeline for continuation reviews that suits their efforts, this will be negotiated and finalized prior to contract award.

1.35 Q: Section 6 states that delivery or third-party licensing of data developed solely at private expense "will not normally be required except as specifically negotiated in a particular agreement." The meaning of this statement is unclear. Please clarify whether "specifically negotiated in a particular agreement" refers to (1) the delivery and disclosure terms already contained in FAR 52.227-14 as incorporated in the Model Contract, or (2) additional rights in privately funded data beyond limited rights and restricted rights that NASA may seek to negotiate. If the latter, please describe the circumstances under which NASA anticipates seeking such rights, and confirm that any expansion of rights would require the offeror's agreement and would not be a condition of award.

A: Specifically negotiated in a particular agreement refers to the delivery and disclosure terms already contained in FAR 52.227-14 and the rights asserted in the Data Rights Assertion Table (DRAT). NASA uses the DRAT to evaluate the proposal, ensure that NASA’s required technical insight and long-term support needs can be met, and determine whether further negotiation of data rights is needed during discussions.

1.36 Q: Please confirm that the attachments required to be filled in by the Offeror for foreign participation only apply if the non-US entity is a team member. Hardware and/or services purchased from a non-US vendor are not applicable as the non-US vendor is not a team member. Should Offerors purchase hardware and/or services, please also confirm that Letters of Commitment are not required for these purchases.

A: Attachment G and a Letter of Commitment are only required if the proposal includes international team members. The Buy American Act is still applicable for tangible end product deliverables.

1.37 Q: If the integrated demonstration hardware delivered to NASA (subject to GRC 52.245-100 Capital Asset Acquisition per A5) contains foreign-origin subassemblies or components sourced from non-designated countries: does Buy American Act

(FAR Part 25) apply to R&D-contract deliverables, and if so, is there a US-content threshold must characterize in the proposal or in Attachment D?

A: Yes, the Buy American Act applies to R&D Contract deliverables for tangible end-product deliverables.

1.38 Q: Attachment F applies to "the Offeror AND each of the Offeror's partners in the Teaming Arrangement supporting partner's research and technology development efforts." Attachment G Item 4 certifies that no NASA funding will be used for foreign R&D effort. Please confirm the threshold between "partner in the Teaming Arrangement / R&D subcontractor" and "commodity hardware supplier / vendor" for the following three foreign-supplier archetypes: (a1) COTS catalog purchase. A foreign commercial supplier sells a catalog product (published part number, standard specifications, no directed design input) via a fixed-price purchase order. Is this supplier considered a "partner in the Teaming Arrangement" for purposes of Att F Q3/Q4, and does the purchase require Att G / Att I disclosure?

A: A teaming partner is an organization that will be supporting the prime’s research and technology development efforts. Soley purchasing COTS from an organization where the organization is not supporting the prime’s research and technology development effort would not be considered a teaming arrangement and thus Attachment F, Attachment G, and Attachment I would not be required. However, the Buy American Act is still applicable for tangible end product deliverables.

1.39 Q: Attachment G Item 4 certifies that no NASA funding will be used for foreign R&D effort. If a foreign entity provides IP heritage, is consulted on prior work, or shares data but is not funded by NASA under this contract, does Attachment G still need to be executed? Where is the threshold between "team member" and "consulted party"?

A: Any organization performing under the contract during contract performance is required to fill out Attachment G.

1.40 Q: Model Contract §J item 1 (Final Att C p.47) calls the deliverable "Post-Award Data Rights Assertions Table," but the reference file Model Contract Att 1 -Pre- Award.pdf titles itself "Pre-Award Identification." Please confirm which version applies to the pre-proposal Data Rights Assertions Table required per §10.2.1.7.2, and whether a separate Post-Award DRAT is expected in delivery.

A: Pre-Award Identification Data Rights Assertion Table is required for proposal. If selected for award the Pre-Award Identification Data Rights Assertion Table will be negotiated as necessary and will become the Post-Award Data Rights Assertion Table and included in the final contract.

1.41 Q: Model Contract Att 2 DRD requires the offeror to deliver Non-Federal System Certification before any non-public NASA information transfers. (a) Is a current NIST SP 800-171 audit or CMMC L2 certification held prior to contract award acceptable, or must the audit be re-scoped to LEIA? (b) By what date after Nov 2026 award must the ATO / certification be in place?

A: Compliance with NIST SP 800-171 must be in place before receiving any NASA non-public information during contract performance. The ATO/certification must be in place before receiving any NASA non-public information during contract performance.

1.42 Q: Which clauses are combined to make "IDENTIFICATION AND

REPRESENTATION OF LIMITED RIGHTS DATA AND RESTRICTED

COMPUTER SOFTWARE. (Combined Clause)"?

A: This clause is making explicit the process and explanation for a “Pre-Award” Data Rights Assertion Table (which is the subject of 52.227-15) and the “Post Award” Data Rights Assertion Table (if necessary).

1.43 Q: Please confirm that, consistent with FAR 52.227-14(g)(1), offerors may structure proposed deliverables so that data developed exclusively at private expense is either

(a) delivered as limited rights data or restricted computer software, or (b) withheld.

A: Yes, offerors may structure proposed deliverables so that data developed exclusively at private expense is either (a) delivered as limited rights data or restricted computer software, or (b) withheld.

1.44 Q: Please confirm whether the "significant net benefit to the Government" standard in Section 6 must be demonstrated in the proposal. FAR 52.227-14 does not require a contractor to justify such an assertion. Please confirm that limited rights data and restricted computer software identified in the Pre-Award DRAT in accordance with the Combined Clause in Section H will be accepted as such without a separate net-benefit showing.

A: Consistent with FAR 52.227-14, FAR 52.227-15, and NASA’s long-standing policy preference for unrestricted rights in contract deliverables produced with Government funding, NASA evaluates proposed restrictions to ensure mission flexibility, public-benefit dissemination, and downstream program use. NASA uses the DRAT to evaluate the proposer’s data rights position. Therefore, for any departure from unlimited-rights delivery, the proposer is given an opportunity to justify how the offering provides a substantial benefit to the Government that outweighs the limitations imposed.

2. TECHNICAL – TOPIC 1: VERTICAL SOLAR ARRAYS

ID QUESTION & ANSWER (Q&A)

2.01 Q: May an Offeror propose maturation and demonstration of critical VSAT electrical power conversion, energy storage, thermal-control, power-management/distribution, and external-power-interface subsystems if the Offeror does not presently possess a complete integrated TRL-4 Vertical Solar Array system, provided the proposed subsystem work addresses the objectives and performance outcomes of Attachment A1 and demonstrates integration with a representative VSAT architecture?

A: Yes. An Offeror is not required to possess a complete integrated TRL-4 VSAT system at proposal submission. Offerors may propose maturation and demonstration of critical VSAT subsystems, provided the effort supports the objectives, performance outcomes, and constraints in Attachment A1.

The proposed subsystems must be sufficiently integrated within a representative VSAT architecture to support system-level demonstrations and demonstrate advancement from TRL 4 to a target TRL 5–6. Proposals limited to isolated component development without sufficient system-level integration and demonstration would not satisfy the solicitation objectives.

2.02 Q: Regarding Objective 4.1 Power Exchange Capability, can you clarify the use of “multiple interfaces”? Does this mean multiple power outputs and connectors, or combination of VSATs connected together?

A: Multiple interfaces can be interpreted to mean multiple power outputs and connectors.

2.03 Q: Can NASA provide interface requirements/specifications for the LVSAT Solar Array Photovoltaics to LVSAT Control Avionics Thermal Control System (TCS) and Power Management and Distribution (PMAD) system?

A: No, the interface/specifications will be part of the full system and inherent on the provider.

2.04 Q: In the previously released Q/A, NASA communicated that “Power conversion from 120VDC to High Voltage AC is outside the scope of this BAA.”; however, NASA also communicates that “Power conversion to high voltage AC can be submitted as an option in the proposal”. Can NASA confirm that if this option is submitted as part of the proposal that it may be awardable within the scope of this

BAA?

A: Yes, it can be. The previous question was to address standalone power conversion systems.

2.05 Q: VSAT is not included as an allocatable element in the EHP-10069, Rev-A, and previous Q&A answers imply some requirements do not apply to VSAT (i.e..

bidirectional 120 VDC interfaces). Do all other requirements from the EHP-10069 document apply to VSAT, or is there a more detailed clarification that NASA can provide?

A: Unless noted, all other elements from EHP-10069 apply to VSAT.

2.06 Q: Can NASA clarify any specific fault tolerance requirements or risk posture assumed for the power architecture? For example, would the system need to meet human rating reliability requirements?

A: Yes, the system would need to meet human rating requirements as described in

EHP-10069.

2.07 Q: Requests clarification on if the interface between the power management electronics and the 100m cable should be a de-mateable dust tolerant connector, or whether this is out of scope for the requested effort.

A: The connector/interface design is within the scope of the effort, however, a de-mateable, dust-tolerant connector is not specifically required. Offerors may propose an appropriate connector/interface solution consistent with their technical approach and the applicable interface requirements.

2.08 Q: Does NASA have specific requirements and standards that offerors should use for testing to verify TRL 6? i.e. TVAC, vibe/shock, EMI/EMC and/or radiation?

A: Offerors may reference [SP-20205003605] NASA Technology Readiness Assessment Best Practices Guide. This guide may be found at:

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20205003605/downloads/%20SP- 20205003605%20TRA%20BP%20Guide%20FINAL.pdf .

2.09 Q: In regards to the "end-to-end" electrical system integration, is any part of the VSAT blanket/array development (design, analysis, and/or manufacturing/testing) in scope? The array design is tightly coupled to PCDU design, even a design effort on the array would be key to informing the PCDU development.

A: Yes. Design/analysis of the VSAT blanket/ array development is in scope to the extent it directly supports the end-to-end electrical system integration and stated objectives of Attachment A1.

2.10 Q: The procurement document section 5.1.1 prescribes EHP-10069 Rev A as the sole design standard. In the event that we identify improvements, alternative solutions, or deviations that yield improved performance/reliability relative to EHP-10069 Rev A, will NASA allow for proposed alternative standards or feedback to change these requirements?

A: For the purposes of this solicitation and proposal development, EHP-10069 Rev A remains the applicable requirement. The Government will not allow for proposed alternative standards or feedback to change these requirements.

2.11 Q:Is tailoring of EHP-10069 requirements allowed if sufficient technical justification can be provided? If so, what further clarification can NASA provide on the process for tailoring?

A: Offerors may not tailor EHP-10069 requirements for the purpose of this solicitation.

2.12 Q:Attachment A1 Section 5 states “the following in-scope and out-of-scope constraints apply”, but no out-of-scope constraints are listed. Will any out-of-scope constraints be provided?

A: No.

2.13 Q: Does NASA intend to take delivery of demonstration hardware, or are hardware items retained by the contractor with data as the deliverable?

A: NASA does not intend to take ownership of hardware that is demonstrated and expects these items to be retained by the contractor.

2.14 Q: SOO Section 3 requires system-level demonstrations in relevant ground environments. Does NASA consider thermal vacuum testing with representative thermal boundary conditions to satisfy “relevant ground environment” for Objectives 1 through 3?

A: Yes. Thermal vacuum testing with representative thermal boundary conditions may satisfy the “relevant ground environment” requirement for Objectives 1 through

3. The representative thermal boundary conditions need to include the entire VSAT PMAD system to support system level demonstration.

2.15 Q:Does the 100-meter interface cable need to be flight-representative, or is commercially available cable of equivalent electrical characteristics acceptable for demonstrating power quality and stability?

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20205003605/downloads/%20SP-20205003605%20TRA%20BP%20Guide%20FINAL.pdf https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20205003605/downloads/%20SP-20205003605%20TRA%20BP%20Guide%20FINAL.pdf

A: A commercially available cable of equivalent electrical characteristics is acceptable. Offeror should describe the heritage and equivalence of the cable to a flight-representative cable.

2.16 Q: Does demonstration of Objective 2 require a specific lunar thermal environment definition or design reference mission, and if so, which source should offerors use?

A: No, the offeror may design to a thermal environment that they specify.

2.17 Q: For Outcome 4.3 and Deliverable 6.3, at which measurement plane is the 120 Vdc, 6 kW capability to be demonstrated – the transmit interface at the EPS output, or the receive interface at the far end of the 100-meter cable per EHP-10069 Section 3.2?

A: The capability is to be demonstrated at the receive interface.

2.18 Q: Is energy storage within Topic 1 scope?

A: Yes. Energy storage may be included within the scope to the extent it supports the electrical system integration, performance outcomes, and objectives identified in Attachment A1. The SOO does not prescribe energy storage as a standalone required element. Offerors should propose energy-storage capabilities as appropriate to their technical approach.

2.19 Q: Outcome 4.1 requires demonstration of a power exchange capability with multiple interfaces. Does NASA intend multiple concurrent physical ports, demonstration of the Interface I (5 kW receive) and Interface II (3 kW bidirectional) scaled applications of the 6 kW universal interface, or both?

A: Multiple interfaces operating at multiple power levels are envisioned but bidirectional power is not currently included in the scope of the SOO.

2.20 Q:EHP-10069 [EHP-PWR-R-0018] references a standardized power connector interface as TBD-EHP-10069-009, with alignment tolerances as TBD-EHP-10069-

026. Will NASA provide a connector definition, a GFE connector, or an interim reference design? Absent one, how should offerors demonstrate compliance with Outcome 4.1?

A: For development purposes, offerors may propose a connector of their choosing that meets the performance specification of 4.1

2.21 Q: How should offerors treat TBD and TBR items in EHP-10069, and who bears responsibility for design changes if EHP-10069 is revised during the period of performance?

A: Offerors should be compliant towards TBR values. Updates to TBR and TBD items will be addressed on a case-by-case basis on their impact to the contracted effort during the period of performance. Any changes that result in a change to the SOW would be the responsibility of the government.

2.22 Q: In NASA parlance (including the Technology Readiness Levels referenced in the solicitation, e.g., Attachment G4), TRL 5 is typically associated with a breadboard or equivalent validation in a relevant environment, while TRL 6 is typically associated with a system/subsystem model or prototype demonstration in a relevant environment—and, as industry developers commonly apply that definition for flight programs, with flight-representative (or flight) hardware tested in a relevant environment. Those definitions materially scope cost, schedule, hardware pedigree, and software maturity for the entire Topic 1 effort.

Please clarify:

1. For Topic 1 evaluation and successful completion, what is NASA’s expected end-of-effort hardware and software state—specifically, is the Government’s target the lower end of the TRL 5–6 range (e.g., breadboard / brassboard maturation consistent with TRL 5), the upper end (TRL 6 prototype / flight-representative hardware in a relevant environment), or either within that range as proposed by the offeror?

2. How should offerors reconcile the SOO’s “target TRL 5–6” language with NASA TRL definitions that distinguish breadboard-class maturation (TRL 5) from prototype / flight-representative hardware demonstration in a relevant environment (TRL 6)?

3. Will NASA evaluate Topic 1 proposals and Continuation Reviews against a preferred or required end-state pedigree (for example: brass board vs.

engineering model vs. flight-like hardware; software fidelity / flight software pedigree; degree of environmental / relevant-environment testing)? If so, please identify that expected state.

4. If offerors propose ending at TRL 5 rather than TRL 6 (or vice versa), how will that affect merit evaluation relative to Attachment A1’s targeted start and end TRL levels?

A: With regard to Topic 1, NASA has established a target TRL range and specified system-level demonstrations, performance outcomes, applicable requirements, and technical objectives for the effort. The SOO does not separately prescribe a particular hardware or software pedigree, such as flight hardware or flight software, beyond those applicable requirements and the maturity and demonstration objectives stated in the solicitation. Offerors should propose the hardware, software, testing, and maturation activities necessary to credibly achieve the proposed maturity level and demonstrate the required objectives and outcomes. Those elements will be evaluated for technical merit, feasibility, risk, schedule, milestones, and price consistency.

Additionally, the solicitation states that higher merit will be given to proposed solutions demonstrating more advanced maturity that aligns with the targeted levels.

Accordingly, a proposal that credibly achieves TRL 6 could receive greater technical merit than one ending at TRL 5, all else being equal.

2.23 Q: EHP-10069 identifies documents in Table 2.1-1 Applicable Documents and Table 2.2-1 References. Please clarify how Offerors are expected to obtain these documents.

A: The documents identified in Table 2.1-1 and 2.2-1 are determined to be not necessary to Offerors for proposal development. Where it may be necessary to support contract performance, documents from these tables may be provided to the successful Offeror during contract performance.

3. TECHNICAL – TOPIC 2: ISRU OXYGEN FROM REGOLITH PRODUCTION SYSTEMS

3.01 Q: Starting TRL and technology maturity: Would a patent-pending oxygen-from-regolith technology that has experimentally demonstrated its underlying physical phenomena, but has not yet demonstrated an integrated end-to-end oxygen-production prototype, be considered sufficiently mature for LEIA if the proposed effort develops and validates the integrated reactor and supporting subsystems and advances the technology toward the required TRL 5–6 demonstration?

A: The end product must be an integrated oxygen production system that uses technologies that are scalable to the targets indicated. Objective 1 states the solicitation goal is an integrated system-level TRL 5 within the period of performance, where the lowest component TRL would drive the system TRL.

Appendix A2 section 2 states “While innovative solutions are not prohibited, the readiness of system elements will be considered.”.

3.02 Q: End-to-end system boundary: Must all functions from regolith storage and feeding through oxygen conditioning at the liquefaction-system interface be physically integrated into a single test article for the final demonstration, or may certain balance-of-plant functions be represented by engineering-equivalent laboratory hardware while the novel oxygen-extraction reactor is demonstrated experimentally?

A: The Topic 2 Statement of Objectives is specifically requesting an integrated hardware system, meaning lunar relevant components for each process step must be integrated together for the demonstration. Therefore, demonstration of only one lunar relevant hardware component (e.g. the reactor) is not sufficient.

3.03 Q: Regolith simulant: Does NASA prescribe a specific lunar regolith simulant, particle-size distribution, mineralogical composition, or feed-preparation protocol for Topic 2 validation, or may the offeror select and justify representative simulant(s) appropriate to the intended lunar feedstock?

A: Appendix B2 1.11.1 specifies a “highlands simulant… relevant to conditions expected in the lunar south pole region”. It also states that the proposer is responsible for selecting and procuring the simulant. Since the size sorting is out of scope, the simulant can be at a size distribution appropriate for the process. The proposal should identify and justify these selections.

3.04 Q: Oxygen performance metrics: What minimum oxygen purity, recovery efficiency, production-rate accuracy, and measurement methodology will be required for the Topic 2 integrated demonstration? In particular, should oxygen recovery efficiency be calculated relative to the total chemically bound oxygen entering with the regolith?

A: Minimum performance metrics are not prescribed since the demonstration system scale is not prescribed and because different processes trade benefits of different metrics. Appendix B2 1.4.1 and 1.5.1 define metrics that must be reported in order to evaluate the system as a whole. Measurement methodologies appropriate to the proposed system should be described in the proposal.

3.05 Q: Reduced-metal coproducts: For an oxygen-from-regolith process that simultaneously generates reduced metals or metal-rich phases, may recovery and characterization of those coproducts be included as secondary technical objectives, provided that oxygen production remains the primary Topic 2 objective?

A: Per Appendix B2 section 1.9.1 capture and storage of non-oxygen ‘by-products’ are not required in this solicitation, so would be considered additional scope.

Proposals must accomplish the defined requirements to be responsive.

3.06 Q:Attachment B2, Section 1.2.1 ties the 1 mT/yr pilot-scale figure to an assumption of 200 continuous 24-hour Earth days of operation per year. Please confirm whether the same 200-day annual duty cycle applies to the 10 mT/yr full-scale capacity referenced in Section 1.1.1 and Attachment A2, Section 5.1.4, or whether a different availability assumption should be used for scaling and SWAP assessments.

A: Yes the same assumption can be used for full scale.

3.07 Q:Attachment B2, Section 1.4.1 states that the reported metrics are intended to represent rates that can be extrapolated to a year of operation and "must include full extent of system operations." Please clarify if the intended averaging boundary for these metrics over the 48-hour continuous operations demonstration includes startup, shutdown, and any in-run interruptions, or only at steady state operations.

A: The extrapolation must include full extent of the operations within the ‘200day’ system production time defined in 1.2.1. The 48-hour operation is meant to demonstrate the operational period, where in-run interruptions must be included. Start up and shut down transients can be additional to the 48-hour period, but, especially if significant, should be stated clearly in the extrapolation since significant start/shutdown times may increase the operational rate needed to meet the 200day production requirement.

3.08 Q:Attachment A2, Section 5.2.5 seems to indicate that oxygen extraction from lunar water technologies are out of scope if the system requires "any operation in permanently shadowed regions." Does this mean oxygen extraction from lunar water is in-scope if the system does not need to operate in PSRs?

Also, I believe there is a typo in that description. It states "This solicitation is not requesting technologies that require any operation in permanently shadowed regions, where the intended resource is oxygen from lunar regolith and not lunar sourced ice water." I think its supposed to say, "This solicitation is not requesting technologies that require any operation in permanently shadowed regions, where the intended resource is oxygen from lunar sourced ice water and not lunar regolith."

A: Oxygen is meant to be sourced from the regolith minerals, not from water ice which is only expected to be found at significant quantities within PSRs. There is no typo.

3.09 Q: Objectives are numbered Objective 1 through Objective 4, followed by "3.5 Objective 6." Please confirm whether an Objective 5 was inadvertently omitted, or whether the item at 3.5 is the fifth and final objective and the label is a typographical error. If a typographical error, will an updated file be provided?

A: The SOO describes a total of 5 objectives. The numbering was correct

3.10 Q:Will the government verify if requirement 1.11.1 should be 1.10.2? Subsequently, will the government verify if requirements 1.12.1, 1.12.2 and the final unnumbered requirement should be 1.11.1, 1.11.2 and 1.11.3? The proposed renumbering aligns with the Requirements summary at the top of page 1 and resolves the blank requirement ID.

A: Yes. The requirement numbering is incorrect. The numbering error does not change the technical content or intent of the requirements and therefore does not necessitate a change to the technical requirements.

3.11 Q: Reference: Attachment A2 SOO, 6.6 states, "Project must have completed integrated system demonstration of continuous operation (time specified in Attachment B4) with uninterrupted product flow stream between components and subsystems and supporting." Attachment B4 does not reference continuous operation.

Question/clarification: Please confirm that the intended reference is B2 and its 1.7.1 minimum 48-hour demonstration requirement.

A: Correct, the reference in A2 6.6 refers to B2. The Government acknowledges the identified typographical errors and will make appropriate corrections for clarity. An updated file will be provided as applicable.

3.12 Q: Draft RFP A2 §4 preamble said "minimum technical capabilities and performance objectives." Final A2 §4 dropped "minimum" and reads "technical/performance requirements." Please confirm whether B2 TPMs are floors (must meet or exceed) or targets (can be traded). Rationale: This changes the strength/weakness framing across every B2-linked subfactor.

A: These are the minimum requirements.

3.13 Q: Draft RFP §3.5 contained Objective 5 (identify risks and risk-reduction pathways). Final §3 has 5 objectives, not 6, and risk/pathway content appears to have moved to §6.7.2/§6.7.3 (Final Report structure) and §6.8.2–6.8.7 (Continuation Review deliverables). Is risk/pathway content now scored (a) inside Risk Mitigation subfactor §11.2.5, (b) via the Final Report content per §6.7, (c) via Continuation Review gates, or (d) all of the above?

A: Risk reduction pathways will be expected as part of the performance review process (b) and (c) per the question above.

3.14 Q: A2 §3.4 states "Scaling a system via modularization is acceptable, but projected SWAP and operational considerations of the scaled, multi module system must be stated." B2 §1.1.1 states scalability to 10 mT O₂/yr must be achievable "without requiring significant modifications to the underlying technology architecture or process." Does adding modules to reach 10 mT/yr constitute a "significant modification"? If a proposer's scaling story is Base × N modules, does that satisfy §1.1.1 provided each module is architecturally identical?

A: Adding modules can be used to meet the production rate. However, the total SWAP and operational considerations of all modules together must be clearly stated.

Per the performance outcomes in Attachment A2, NASA will consider SWAP and operational implications for future application of these systems full scale.

3.15 Q: §5.2.5 excludes "technologies that require any operation in permanently shadowed regions, where the intended resource is oxygen from lunar regolith and not lunar sourced ice water." Please confirm this excludes only ice-water-sourced O₂.

Architectures that generate water or water vapor as internal intermediates during reduction (e.g., hydrogen reduction, MRE with water electrolysis, carbothermal reduction) — where water is a transient in-process species, not a feedstock — remain in scope, per Draft RFP Q&A 4.19. Please confirm.

A: 5.2.5 refers to lunar sourced water (as the oxygen source). The solicitation requests oxygen extracted from regolith minerals, where water as an intermediate product e.g. from the reactions above, is acceptable.

3.16 Q: B2 §1.5.2 now includes notional oxygen-cleanliness targets of <1% non-condensables and <0.5% condensables, referencing Cold Facts vol 42 no 2 2026 pg

24. (a) Is compliance with these notional targets an acceptance criterion for the integrated demonstration, or advisory only? (b) Is the contaminant list at the referenced Cold Facts page the binding species list, or illustrative?