MTN Industry Day Questions and Answers 04-09-26.pdf

MTN Industry Day Questions and Answers

Tracking Number Question Reference MTN Response

ID-001 What is the timeline for procurement?

See Industry Day Presentation (Slide 21) Attached to sam.gov

ID-002

How will digital engineering practices be leveraged in the acquisition process? Will companies be required to adhere to industry best practices?

Providers will need to comply with IT requirements outlined in the contract and requirements.

ID-003 When is the first projected launch of an MTN satellite projected?

It is expected that the MTN mission will launch in the late 2028 CY time frame to take advantage of that launch window to Mars.

ID-004

Will MTN be taking a back seat to NASA Ignition/lunar base/humans to the Moon?

The public law requires it. As Administrator Isaacman mentioned during the Artemis briefing the other day, NASA can conduct multiple activities simultaneously

ID-005

We're interested in talking about NASA's interest in tie-ins to the PBR priorities announced last week

MTN is funded by the public law, so it is assumed the MTN is independent of any budget changes, although nothing is 100% certain.

ID-006

X-band is listed in the Ground Rules and Assumptions for Advanced Proximity Links but does not show up elsewhere in the requirements document. Can NASA clarify that X-band CAN be used to satisfy the requirement for proximity links? If so please update the relevant requirements (Requirements Document page 9 GR&A 9)

(Requirements Document page 9 GR&A 9)

NASA has completed a trade study and determined that S and K/Ka are currently the most favorable.

Ground rules on page 9 have been updated (update will be in Rev A of the objectives and requirements document).

Currently the bands that are identified in the requirements are consistent with the SFCG recommendations.

ID-007 What will trigger turning on the launch option in the contract? (Requirements Document page 9 GR&A 11) The contractor's procurement lead time for a proposed launch vehicle. MTN acknowledges that could come soon after award.

ID-008

Can you provide clarity on "delivery"? Will NASA take ownership of the system?

(Requirements Document page12 MTN-REQ- 005)

Yes; NASA will take ownership of the MTN system. The approach is that the system is Government owned and Contractor operated.

Per the public law, NASA will accept delivery of spacecraft data package at a pre-ship review (or vendor equivalent) prior to launch vehicle integration. NASA will accept final delivery of the spacecraft upon successful commissioning at Mars.

ID-009

How does the IDIQ work?

Is it just for the T&M task orders?

Can people on ramp to it later?

(Cover Letter Page 1) IDIQ is only for T&M task orders for. It is not for on ramp support. MTN does not currently have an on ramp clause.

ID-010

For T&M task orders on the IDIQ, will performers be required to respond to all RFPs?

(Cover Letter Page 1) Yes, the contractor will be required to respond to all IDIQ RFPs.

ID-011

When are comments on the DRFP Due? The Cover Letter says 10 calendar days from release, which would be April 12, but SAM.gov says April 13.

(Cover Letter Page 3) April 13 (2pm EDT) is the due date. April 12 is Sunday, SOP is to push to Monday.

ID-012

Are there additional attachments (attachment C & D, for example) that have not been provided?

No. Nothing is missing. C & D are reserved.

ID-013

How does NASA intend to reconcile the specific scope in the draft documentation with the desire for leveraging existing commercial capabilities to the greatest extent possible?

In general, the Draft RFP, DRFP - 80GSFC26R0011 and related attachments specify a degree of compliance and oversight that are more consistent with traditional acquisition efforts than with commercial service contracts. Specific examples include the scope of the DRD list and degree of NASA participation/ approval in contractor management and technical processes. This framework has the potential to introduce schedule and cost risk to the program, particularly in the event of multiple awards.

NASA is procuring a commercial telecommunications system for Mars. NASA has decided not to procure a MTN as a commercial telecommunication service due to

(1) the language in the law; and (2) the lack of a commercial market place at Mars during this time frame. NASA is encouraging industry to use existing commercial products and processes as long as the overall implementation meets all unique specific mission requirements that NASA’s Mars missions need.

http://sam.gov/ http://sam.gov/ http://sam.gov/

ID-014

Why can't NASA procure MTN studies using the same type of FFP contracts that it used for the Mars Sample Return (MSR) studies?

Regarding the use of Time & Materials for CLIN 2, wouldn't FFP task orders be more consistent with Administrator Isaacman's new guidance, as expressed in his March 18, 2026 email to NASA Team Members, in which he stated that FFP contracts should be the 'default' for procurement of 'commercial products and services'?

The T&M tasks are needed to handed unforeseen trades and/or analysis that may be required in support f the MTN. These are potentially critical work that may need to be performed and may be extremely challenging to precisely define scope.

ID-015

Lastly, the prescription of GSFC 52.245-99 Supplemental Financial Reporting of NASA Property in the Custody of Contractors (JUN 2019) has not been shared online for review, but appears in both text and intent to be generally modeled after clauses intended to support cost-type requirements. This includes onerous and time-consuming reporting antithetical to NASA's stated intent to embrace commercial acquisitions which this requirement does not support.

This clause is currently being reviewed by our property office along with our financial office.

The inclusions of FAR 52.232-29, Terms for Financing of Purchases of Commercial Products and Commercial Services may require the need for the clause to remain in the solicitation and resulting contract.

ID-016

As this is a critical approach that NASA can take to reduce MTN schedule risk, how many awards does NASA expect to issue in support of this opportunity?

One. MTN considered making multiple awards as a risk mitigation. That approach could either

(1) plan a down-select milestone or (2) intend to build, launch, and operate two systems;

both approaches are problematic in satisfying MTN requirements. In the case of (1), funding can't be obligated beyond the down-select milestone, putting the requirement to obligate WFTC funding by end of FY26 at risk. For (2), it is not clear that the WFTC funding is sufficient to make multiple awards. In either case, planning for multiple awards complicates the procurement and puts the obligation requirement at risk.

ID-017

What is the intent behind specifying implementation in this way compared to the initial draft requirement set?

In MTN-402-REQ-001, Revision Preliminary, Mars Telecommunications Network (MTN) Objectives and Requirements Document draft provided on 23 February 2026, a number of requirements indicated flexibility for Offerors to select the implementation approach.

Specific examples include the supported frequency bands for DWE and proximity links.

However, the updated version of the requirements now specifies “how” to implement a solution rather than “what” capabilities and performance are needed from a user perspective. These changes seem to drive this opportunity more towards a traditional acquisition than a commercial services contract.

NASA is not prescribing how to build the spacecraft, rather we are defining the interfaces that MTN will implement that will affect NASA users and partners.

After the initial requirements were set, more information (constraints, internal assessments, other stakeholders, frequency/ spectrum guideline/recommendations, etc.)

was assembled, and some of that information drove new/updated requirements that provided clarity (e.g., on the meaning of DSN compatibility) or specified preferences based on MTN-conducted analysis (e.g., advanced proximity link frequencies).

Note that the requirements may change in the final RFP as well. These changes will be primarily based on industry feedback and continued internal trade studies.

ID-018

What aspect of MTN has been determined to be a covered AI System as defined in the PIC? For the Disclosure of AI Use During Contract Performance requirement, has NASA issued guidance on the specific parameters for identifying which AI uses require disclosure and authorization as indicated in the PIC, and if so, where can it be found?

In the Draft RFP MTN Cover Letter (points 3 and 4), and Enclosure 1: Draft Performance of Work Statement (1.2.4), the use of AI is discussed. These requirements do not appear to align with NASA's updated Procurement Information Circular (PIC) 25-03A from February 11, 2026.

No aspect of MTN has been determined to be a covered ai system.

PWS (1.2.4) is required by the NASA OCIO to be included in every procurement. These ai disclosure requirements are still being worked out - we welcome your feedback.

ID-019

The presentation mentioned that offerors would be encouraged to use Electra for the UHF requirement. I thought Electra was 20+ years old- is this really a reference to the USB radio from Mars Sample Return?

https://www.spacefoundation.org/2021/08/2 4/nasa-selects-l3harris-to-guide-mars-mission-samples-home/

NASA can provide as GFE two new Electra radios that can meet the proximity UHF requirements for MTN. While other radios have been developed for space, including the Universal Space Transponder (UST) mentioned in the question, NASA has two Electra radios available today for MTN. Electra would enable all of the Legacy Proximity Link requirements to be met.

ID-020

X-band is listed in the Ground Rules and Assumptions for Advanced Proximity Links but does not show up elsewhere in the requirements document. Can NASA clarify that X-band CAN be used to satisfy the requirement for proximity links? If so please update the relevant requirements

(Requirements Document page 9 GR&A 9)

The original Ground Rules and Assumption (#9) has been updated in the Rev A version of the MTN Objectives and Requirements document. NASA has completed a trade study for the Advance Proximity Link and determined that S and K/Ka are currently the most favorable. Those bands are consistent with recommendations from the Space Frequency Coordination Group. However, the project is open for feedback via the Draft RFP process.

Our primary concerns are meeting the data rate requirements of the Advance Proximity Link while meeting overall project schedule and not interfering with current and planned future users at Mars. Our concern with X-Band for the Advance Proximity Link is that MTN might interfere with other X-Band users at Mars if MTN transmits a high power proximity signal in the current X-Band frequency allocation.

ID-021

Study said assume no DSN but now requirements dictate DSN, can you explain that change and how we should think about DSN availability in the future

NASA has reported, including recent NASA OIG reports, that the Deep Space Network has a capacity issue, especially in the near future with more crewed missions at the Moon and, hopefully, more missions at Mars. The Space Communications and Navigation (SCaN) office has stated that they would like NASA missions to use commercial services whenever possible. In a recent call for studies by industry, separate from this activity, SCaN is investigating the ability of supporting future missions at Mars using only commercial capabilities. In the case of MTN, however, we believe the schedule and performance requirements drive a need to use the DSN.

Thus DSN compatibility is a threshold requirement. MTN will be a high priority mission and will get the needed DSN time.

However, that doesn’t mean the MTN provider can’t design their spacecraft to also use commercial ground stations. For example, a larger antenna or more power could be used to allow meeting the threshold (or even goal) requirements with something smaller than a 34-meter DSN antenna.

ID-022 Are oral presentations due same day as written responses?

Yes, the slide package will be due at the same time as the written proposal materials (expected 30 days following the issuance of the final RFP).

ID-023

Are the eligible offerors confirmed as: Blue Origin, L3Harris, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Rocket Lab, SpaceX, Quantum Space and Whittinghill Aerospace?

(the participants in the Mars Sample Return design studies.)

As reported in SpaceNews, based on a 1-day posting in January.

No. NASA's eligibility assessment process is under development. Corporate partners who submitted 51 U.S.C § 20306 eligibility assessments will be provided NASA's advisory feedback once the process has been reviewed by NASA leadership.

ID-024

Is the MTN contract purely for companies that build Mars Telecom Orbiters (MTO) with the required comms infrastructure to support the Mars and DWE links, or is NASA interested in companies that have contracts to orchestrate and manage MTN communications?

The prime contractor is responsible for delivery of the MTN system, inclusive of the development of the flight system. Prime contractors are free to select subcontractor partners to deliver different aspects of the system.

ID-025 Are companies that did not participate in the Mars Return Studies with funding in FY24/25 precluded from bidding on MTN? What if a company didn’t participate in the studies but was part of the NSN studies and also support the NASA SCaN program? What are the core requirements to bid?

P.L. 119-21 establishes criteria to be considered for the requirement. Companies who provided eligibility assessments will receive NASA advisory feedback; Regardless of the advisory process all are free to submit proposals. The first step of the proposal evluation process will assess the compliance to the eligibility criteria in P.L. 119-21.

ID-026

Who is eligible, what counts as past experience?

For past performnace pleae refer to the past performance provision and questionnaire upon release of the final RFP.

ID-027

How will the government determine if prior Mars communications studies performed for NASA result in OCI as described in A.9(b)1 - Unequal Access to Information: An OCI due to “Unequal Access to Information” is created when a Contractor has access to nonpublic information that may provide the firm an unfair competitive advantage to compete against other companies, likely in the context of a later competition for a future Government contract.

Applying the principles of FAR Subpart 9.5, each Offeror shall assess whether there is an OCI associated with the proposal it submits.

The Offeror must explain the actions it intends to use to resolve any OCI identified by the Government or identified through its own assessment. If the Offeror’s internal investigation reveals an actual or potential OCI stemming from prior or ongoing work (including, but not limited to, prior government studies, specifications development, or technical assistance), the Offeror shall provide a detailed narrative explaining the nature of the conflict and the specific actions and firewalls that were implemented to successfully mitigate, avoid, or neutralize it.

ID-028 Will NASA consider proposals outside of the narrowed field outlined in the draft RFP that bring more relevant deep space experience, reliability and affordability and along those lines, will U.S. industry partnered with ESA or ASI being considered a compliant proposal?

Each proposal needs to be responsive to the requirements of the MTN RFP Offerors are responsible to make sure that its proposed industry partners are consistent with US statutes and regulations and will not hinder, but rather contribute towards meeting the MTN requirements and aggressive schedule.

ID-029

“Delivery to administration” can you explain if this means ownership/title transfer? Who ends up owning and operating the system?

Please refer to ID-008

ID-030

What frequency bands are required for proximity links? The current document suggests that all of them may be used. Please refer to ID-006

ID-031

What org at NASA is funding this, Science Mission Directorate, Space Operations, Exploration?

See Industry Day Presentation (Slide 15) Attached to sam.gov

Sheet1