SPARC Industry Day Q.A.pdf

Space Power and Reactor Capabilities (SPARC)

Industry Day Questions

August 14, 2026

This document shows combined questions and responses from the open Industry Day Q&A and one-on-one sessions.

Count QUESTION RESPONSE

Are there limitations on acting as a major subcontractor on another proposal if a company is also proposing as a prime contractor?

No, offerors are free to propose both as a prime contractor and as a subcontractor within another offeror’s proposal.

Should offerors be concerned about Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCIs) with awardees or multiple awardees? For example, a single party being awarded as multiple teams.

FAR 9.508 provides examples of different types of OCIs. Offerors must internally consider the unique circumstances related to each proposal submitted for SPARC (including the Awardable Sample Task Order (ASTO)) and identify any relevant OCI concerns when proposing.

If a future task order (TO) is solicited under SPARC and a subcontractor is interested in proposing, should the Prime contractors be prepared to propose on behalf of the subcontractor?

Yes, future TOs will only be solicited from Prime contractors.

What do letters of intent need to consist of for teaming arrangements (i.e., do they need to be legally binding)?

No defined content or format is required for letters of intent.

The SPARC cover letter asks about major subcontractors being evaluated at the Multiple Award Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (MAIDIQ) level.

Is there a reason not to cover subcontractors at that level?

The identification of major subcontractors is usually predicated on a percentage of work to be completed by each subcontractor.

There is no denominator at the MAIDIQ level because SPARC only has a ceiling value.

Additionally, NASA recognizes that teams are likely to shift for each TO. Based on these considerations, NASA does not intend to evaluate major subcontractors at the SPARC level.

When evaluating teaming options, there are some companies which aren't interested in serving as primes for the TO but would like a seat at the MAIDIQ table.

Approach to ASTO is one of the three subfactors within the Mission Suitability evaluation factor. Therefore, it is a significant aspect of all proposals. An offeror’s decision not to respond to this

Do they have to propose to even though there's no intent of performing the ASTO?

Will NASA provide more insight into the point allocation for the Mission Suitability evaluation?

Does NASA intend to award SPARC only to those offerors awarded the Lunar Reactor - 1 (LR-1) Phase 1 TO or is it intended to populate SPARC with additional companies?

subfactor will likely lead to the proposal not being fully evaluated as the proposal will likely be found to be unacceptable during the initial acceptability check.

No, the point allocation of Mission Suitability subfactors has been defined by NASA and is reflected in the Draft Request for Proposals

(RFP).

As stated in the Draft RFP, NASA may award both SPARC and the LR-1 Phase 1 TO to zero, one, or multiple companies.

Given SPARC is the “umbrella” and proposing to the LR-1 Phase 1 TO is necessary for entry, should teaming arrangements (specifically, the selection of prime and subcontractors) for follow on TOs considered now?

For every TO solicited under the SPARC contract, companies will have an opportunity to propose unique team arrangements. Only SPARC Prime contractors can compete for TOs solicited under the SPARC contract.

8 Are whole dollar and percentage Small Business goals required at the SPARC level?

NASA is reviewing Federal regulations to determine if both whole dollar and percentage goals are needed, or if percentage goals alone are sufficient at the SPARC level. The Final RFP will reflect this conclusion.

9 Can small businesses propose as SPARC Prime contractors? Yes, small businesses can propose to SPARC.

10 What updates does NASA intend to make between the Draft and Final RFP?

Offerors are encouraged to review the Draft RFP Cover Letter and the contents of this document regarding information that is likely to be updated. NASA reserves the right to make any changes it determines necessary. Offerors are responsible for thoroughly reviewing the Final RFP to identify all changes incorporated between Draft and Final RFP.

Given that the ASTO is Firm-Fixed Price, will tailoring of the Statement of Work (SOW) or RFP be allowed?

Offerors are allowed to propose changes, but are cautioned that, as stated in the Draft RFP “Exceptions may result in a determination of proposal unacceptability (NFS 1815.305-70), may preclude award to an Offeror if award is made without discussions, or may otherwise affect an Offeror's competitive standing.”

Are responders to the RFP being asked to provide positive and negative performance incentives? Please clarify how this works.

This question derives from the Draft RFP language in Section L requiring offerors to propose positive and negative performance incentives as encouraged by FAR 16.402- 2(b). In the Final RFP, NASA will consider clarifying how negative performance incentives should be addressed in the Cost/Price Volume.

How do proprietary rights relate to the Engineering Test Unit (ETU) for portions of the design developed at private expense?

Does the government expect a delivery of the ETU hardware to NASA?

Data developed at private expense may be delivered with Limited Rights. Data developed under this (or any other) Federal contract must be delivered with Unlimited Rights. Hardware delivered under the contract will become the property of the Government.

NASA is considering adding language to the Final RFP to address exceptions to delivering the ETU if substantial advantages to the Government are proposed.

Is there the expectation that an Earned Value Management System (EVMS) will be, or may be, required at the TO level?

The current wording of the SPARC SOW seems to require EVMS. Is this prohibitive to companies who do not do EVMS? How will contractors with non-traditional cost accounting processes or without government-audited business systems be handled?

The SPARC evaluation will address EVMS (among other systems) because it is possible that EVMS may be required for some TOs solicited under SPARC. In these cases, the EVMS requirements and clauses will be included in the TO solicitation and TO terms and conditions.

As described in the Draft RFP, an offeror’s lack of any business system identified in Attachment J.2-7 will be noted as a risk to the SSA. The SSA may consider this information in the selection of offerors.

Is pricing for the contract focused on the scope the ASTO?

Does the Cost/Price Volume ask for the price of a full LR-1 Flight System or only the scope included in the ASTO?

MAIDIQ solicitations primarily use sample TOs to evaluate Cost/Price. NASA intends to use the ASTO to evaluate Cost/Price for

SPARC.

An estimated cost for the build and delivery of a flight system is a deliverable for the ASTO, but is not requested as part of the proposals.

16 Is there a limit on number or dollar value for payment milestones?

No, offerors may propose as many milestones as they see appropriate. Offerors are highly encouraged to review FAR 32.10 prior to formulating performance-based payments.

The pricing spreadsheet requests a breakdown more suitable for a cost reimbursable contract.

Because NASA is utilizing the ASTO to evaluate Cost/Price for SPARC, NASA intends to request more information than would normally be provided in a competitive price reasonableness evaluation.

17 Is the $350 million SPARC ceiling value limited to the LR-1 Phase 1 TO?

The SPARC ceiling value can be applied broadly to requirements other than just the

ASTO.

Where is cost realism being accounted for?

Why are clauses pertaining to Certified Cost and Pricing Data included in SPARC?

Fixed price competitions generally utilize price reasonableness. NASA intends to perform a robust evaluation of price reasonableness for SPARC.

NASA does not intend to request certified cost or pricing data (CCPD) with for the SPARC evaluation, however it is likely that certified cost or pricing data will be required in the future. Therefore, CCPD clauses have been included in SPARC.

What is being asked of the Basis of Estimate narrative for the pricing spreadsheet?

The narrative is to be used to support information submitted in the Price Volume spreadsheet.

Is there the intention that there will be a down-selection between competing contractors after Preliminary Design Review (PDR)? Does the government have the ability to contractually down-select prior to

PDR?

NASA has not determined a specific acquisition approach for any future TOs that may be issued under SPARC.

Both autonomous and automatic are used throughout the SOW. What is the difference between the two?

The use of autonomous and automatic will be revised in the Final RFP.

For completeness, automatic is used to mean a process with prescribed steps, while autonomous processes include decision making.

Would NASA be amenable to brokering introductions between the SR-1 reactor designers and LR-1 industry partners? Will

LR-1 contractors are free to, but not required to, engage with SR-1 suppliers.

LR-1 contractors be able to work with the SR-1 team?

Is there any ongoing testing for SR-1 where the government might share what is being learned?

At the Ignition event, the expectation was voiced that the LR-1 design will try to leverage lessons learned and knowledge from SR-1. Please clarify any relationship between LR-1 and SR-1.

Utilizing technology similar to SR-1 for an LR- 1 design is not precluded but is not required.

24 Will the Preliminary Design Review be a formal NASA PDR, following NPR 7120.5?

All milestone reviews required for the ASTO will be defined and led by the contractor, within the scope defined by the LR-1 SOW.

The minimum success criteria defined in the SOW are tailored from NASA procedural requirements.

When will the RFP be released? Is it on track for release this calendar year? What is the timeline for proposals and award?

Tentative release of the final RFP is 45 days after responses are received for the Draft RFP, and the project is on track for this release. Proposals will be due 30 days after the release of the Final RFP, and contract award is expected 120 days from the time all responses to the Final RFP are received.

What is the longer term timeline for program? What does it look like after PDR?

What potential future TOs might be released? What is NASA's plan for achieving funding and schedule beyond the ASTO?

What is the post demo procurement plan and schedule? (I.e., how many units will be purchased, on what kind of cadence?) Is there a demand for additional units, since no customer is identified in the Concept of Operations (ConOps)?

The LR-1 Program’s current scope is to complete the hardware-driven PDR. The SPARC MAIDIQ is expected to be used broadly to advance NASA reactor technologies.

The scope of this is a hardware-rich PDR for LR-1, with an eye toward a flight program thereafter. Long lead hardware is often needed before PDR. Is it expected that contractors will be proposing the purchase of long-lead flight items in this ASTO?

The concern is costing the purchase of these items in the proposal, since it is not in

Supply chain identification is part of a data deliverable for the ASTO. The identification of long lead items is part of that data deliverable. The procurement of long lead items is outside the scope of the ASTO. To address the concern, it is recommended that the long lead hardware information is included in the supply chain data deliverable and identified as a risk in the construct of scope and so doesn't provide benefit to the

ASTO.

the established risk process. However, note that this is a mission-level risk, which is out of scope for LR-1 at this time.

28 What facility requirements are there for the ETU should the offeror plan for?

It is up to the offeror to identify what facilities are needed, and request a GTA to utilize any required NASA facilities.

What scheduling or other information is available from Department of Energy (DOE) facilities?

No information is available at this time.

Please clarify regulatory engagement activities intended for Phase 1 activities.

How forward-looking should the proposal information be for this (e.g., stating compliance, providing detailed examples of past compliance, describing plans for compliance)?

The ASTO has a deliverable which states understanding of and compliance to the regulations should LR-1 go beyond hardware driven PDR. NASA intends to make sure the contractor understands all the applicable regulations, authorities, and NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) that exist up to PDR.

It's up to the offeror how detailed to respond to this section of the RFP. At a minimum, the offeror should demonstrate understanding of what is needed up to PDR for delivery to NASA, identify their plan to work with regulatory authorities, and state understanding of the inclusion of additional authorities and the fact that information will need to be shared.

Will proposals be looked upon more favorably if the timeline for completion is reduced?

The RFP provides the option for companies to propose incentives.

32 Is the LR-1 system providing a cable to provide power at the user location?

The long-distance transmission cable is out of scope for the TO.

33 Will an output connector type be specified at the LR-1 system boundary?

No connector type is specified in the requirements. The design space for the output interface remains open.

34 Will a heat transport technology be specified for the LR-1 system design?

There will be no requirement for a particular heat transport technology, the trade space will be open for the contractor to choose.

35 Please clarify how scalability is defined / viewed for the context of the RFP.

Scalability is not a requirement but does appear in the rationale for the requirement to use Brayton power conversion. The

NSTM-3 memo cites a target of at least 100 kW for extensibility.

36 Please expand on what is meant by a low power mode in the requirement LR1-31.

Please review requirement LR1-31 and the rationale. The term low power is not used, but ‘partial power’ is identified in the requirement and defined in the SOW.

The SOW has a 354 hr requirement for darkness. Please confirm the intent of this requirement. Is the intent to require the LR-1 plant to survive the night without the reactor on, or is this just the generation of power during shadowed conditions?

LR-1 will experience at least 354 hrs of darkness. LR-1 must be provide power output per requirements during this time. It must also tolerate this darkness period without detriment to performance. The method for doing so is to be determined by the contractor.

What time period following a shutdown or a fault does the restart requirement (LR1-

11) apply to?

There is no requirement that limits the shutdown time due to a fault. The system must be designed to recover from faults without detriment to performance.

Relative to the ETU and LR-1 flight system, should the requirements be tracked separately?

This question comes from the potential that the components in the ETU could differ significantly from those in the final flight system. The design for the two will begin to diverge with the development of the design.

The ETU shall have its own set of requirements, decomposed by the contractor from the flight requirements.

There is no demand that the ETU be used to validate flight requirements. ETU requirements decomposition shall have their traceability to flight requirements documented. Differences between the ETU and flight design may manifest as a risk which the contractor shall document in the risk deliverable.

Does the requirement of single failure tolerance while producing 20 kW take into account full system reliability?

It would be helpful if reliability of subsystems was taken into account as part of the requirement set. If something has an extremely low chance of failure it would be worth examining whether to add a second component, increasing complexity and reducing reliability in the name of fault tolerance.

Contractors are free to propose their preferred method for meeting the single fault tolerance requirement while taking into account their reliability analyses.

Is there a height requirement for the radiation limit in the shielding diagram associated with requirement LR1-18?

The only current bounding condition for the shielding height is that needed to sufficiently protect hardware near the reactor.

The diagram in requirement LR1-18 shows the lander right next to the reactor. Please provide clarification on that configuration.

Following delivery of LR-1, will the lander be reused?

LR-1 does not own that piece of the mission (emplacement of the system on the surface), and so cannot comment on whether the lander will be beside the reactor during operations, and what the radiation analysis profile should be. At this time, it is not anticipated that the lander will be reused following delivery of LR-1.

43 What is the scope of the flight system and ETU requirements draft at proposal?

NASA is looking for the strategy and approach taken by the offeror, to verify the offeror understands the requirements in the SOW and have considered how they inform the LR-1 system.

This is one of the items the NASA team will evaluate to identify the minimum required deliverable at proposal. The final RFP will provide details for the scope of data required at proposal.

Requirement LR1-17 defines post mission disposal and the ConOps describes a long-term passive safe state. How many years need to be analyzed to prove a long-term passive safe state?

NASA will consider clarification of this requirement intention and definition.

45 How firm is the HALEU requirement?

LR-1 is constrained to use HALEU. Offerors are free to provide feedback on any rationale for HEU so the concern can be passed up to decisionmakers.

The SOW says the LR-1 activity leverages ongoing work for terrestrial microreactors, and if this is true is there a specific fuel form preferred for LR-1?

All fuel forms are within the trade space, and the design is up to the contractor.

However, no fuel is required, used, or bought for this TO.

Is there a terrestrial fuel form allocated from DOE? Or is LR-1 allocated straight uranium and it's up to the contractor to take it to something usable?

Will HALEU fuel be provisioned to the contractor or the government? Will it be the contractor’s responsibility to acquire fuel?

Fuel provisioning is out of scope for the TO.

In regards to Technology Readiness Level (TRL), what are the entrance / exit criteria for TRL coming out of the ETU?

Refer to the SOW for the ETU testing requirements.

Must the ETU operate at 20 kW, or may it be designed for less? Should the ETU be full scale to match the flight system?

Does the ETU need to demonstrate deployment at the full scale? Is the ETU intended for verification and validation of flight system requirements, or technology maturation and risk reduction?

What additional tests (e.g., shock, vibe, EMI, deployment) are required for the

ETU?

The ETU must demonstrate the key features necessary for a 20 kWe LR-1. Components are required to demonstrate the functionality of the flight system, but do not need to match the design of the flight system in size, fidelity, or redundancy, as long as requirements are traceable between the subsystems for the flight system and the

ETU.

What is demonstrated, how, and what additional tests are performed (e.g.

deployment, shock, vibe, EMI) is all within the trade space which may be proposed by the contractor for the ETU test sequence.

The ASTO SOW does not require that the ETU be used to verify flight system requirements.

If a flight system design utilizes more than one string, the ETU may demonstrate only one string.

Note that NASA intends to clarify the test requirements for the ETU defined in the

ASTO SOW.

50 What fidelity is desired of the ETU control interface?

An open trade space was intentionally left for offerors to decompose the flight system requirements to the ETU as desired. Please review Section 5.4 of the LR-1 SOW for clarification.

Will a load simulator be provided for the ETU test? Will the frequency associated with load bearing and power delivery be provided for the flight system or ETU?

NASA will not provide a load simulator or power profile. Definition of ETU interfaces and test support equipment is the responsibility of the contractor.

The flight system will be a federal information system, and the ETU will also be treated as a federal information system.

Is this with the view that NASA will eventually take ownership of that hardware?

Yes, NASA expects to take ownership of the

ETU.

NASA is considering adding language to the Final RFP to address exceptions to delivering the ETU if substantial advantages to the Government are proposed.

The scope of the ETU is an engineering test to demonstrate functions such as moving heat, generating electricity, and dissipating excess heat. How much reactor of the reactor design does NASA want included in the ETU?

The ETU is a non-nuclear demonstration, but it's still an integrated demonstration. It needs to be electrically heated and representative of a real reactor. The contractor should flow down requirements to define the interface as needed to demonstrate the system.

Coating and epoxies are included as examples for the radiation component testing. Where would these be used and why are they called out?

The list in the SOW is provided as a generic set of examples that might be considered in the radiation test campaign, but is neither exhaustive nor binding.

Is a Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) expected for potential fault conditions, so that those conditions may be identified and run for the ETU testing?

Both a FMEA/Critical Items List and a Preliminary Hazards Analysis are data deliverables for the PDR-level flight design to be delivered near the end of the task. A separate data deliverables exists and ETU design document that identifies expectations for the same products. It is incumbent upon any offeror to exercise judgement to develop products earlier than contractually obligated if there are other drivers for use.

Are there any additional details for the ConOps which can be provided, particularly directly after landing? What is the intent for offloading the LR-1 system from the lander?

For a surface ConOps, mobility is probable as a need to place the reactor. Are mobility solutions scored in the proposal or outside the scope?

No further ConOps details are available.

There will be no scoring associated with mobility in the proposal.

It is clear from the Draft RFP that bidders for the ASTO aren't responsible for selection of the lander. However there is an element of design integration and interface definition for the design of a payload; is NASA going to facilitate that collaboration with lander suppliers? Should collaboration with lander suppliers be part of the proposal?

The LR-1 program scope does not include system launch or landing. LR-1 is a payload to be incorporated into a mission by future users. If lander information is necessary for preliminary design work, the contractor is responsible for obtaining it.

Is NASA unlikely to pick multiple reactors of the same architecture (e.g., deliberately pick one heat pipe reactor, one gas cooled reactor…) to advance multiple designs to

PDR?

The Draft RFP includes no evaluation criteria for similarity between designs.

Is there a desire for the LR-1 reactor to be used in the future for NEP designs? I.e., should it be a multi-mission reactor concept?

This TO is not looking beyond the immediate scope of a hardware-driven PDR.