CLDC QandA Industry Update_Sources Sought.pdf

CLDC Sources Sought & Industry Update Questions & Answers

Pre-Decisional: All content is considered draft and subject to change prior to final RFP release.

The Questions and Answers below include industry submissions from both 1) Sources Sought Synopsis (Published April 9, 2025) and 2) CLDC Industry Update Presentation (published on April 24, 2025). NASA is continuously evaluating contractual requirements and strategy. Questions or comments that were submitted and are not answered below are still being considered or evaluated and may be clarified in future communications with industry and/or within a future Draft RFP release in sam.gov.

Requirement Updates

1. Regarding the four crew members that inhabit the station; is the two (2) NASA astronaut inclusion a minimum and is NASA considering more? Additionally, if there are 2 CLDs, is the concept that they would alternate stations? NASA is planning to procure services for two (2) NASA crew members as part of the minimum service order. Additional seats and services could be purchased if needed and available. Concept for multiple CLDs will depend on NASA’s needs and budget and alternating increments is an option.

2. If waivers are acceptable, can NASA incorporate them as a revised standard or requirement instead of putting them all in appendices? Although an expedited process is expected, past waivers will still need to be assessed to ensure they are applicable to the proposed application.

3. Recommend C2V2 requirements be maintained or NASA developed and funded as a common substitute to ensure compatibility across the entire ecosystem. NASA desires to limit changes to heritage visiting vehicles; however, the use of C2V2 as currently utilized on ISS is not viable. A new UHF radio standard was developed by NASA to provide an alternative solution to the industry. Additional details on NASA’s approach will be provided in the Draft

RFP.

Heritage Visiting Vehicle Transportation Interface Requirements

4. In the CLD Coalition Forum at Space Symposium, NASA said that it will not be a requirement for CLDs to enable both docking and berthing - that providers will be free to choose which kind of vehicles they want to support. Will the draft and final RFPs be clear about the applicability of VV requirements in this regard? NASA will clarify in the Draft RFP the applicability of Visiting Vehicle requirements with respect to docking or berthing to the CLD.

5. When does NASA anticipate initiating the discussions referenced and what will be the structure for those discussions? NASA has delayed a formal Industry Day and Industry One-on-Ones and is still evaluating when to schedule these sessions.

6. What vehicles will be a part of the list of heritage vehicles that could be offered as GFF? NASA is considering heritage vehicles (i.e., such as the current vehicles on the NASA CRS2 and CCtCap contracts) that provide services to ISS (i.e., Dragon, Starliner, Dream Chaser, and Cygnus) but might also include International vehicles certified prior to ISS end of life.

7. Can NASA provide a more definitive plan for the resolution of the requirements for the replacement of the C2V2 system? Additional details on NASA’s approach will be provided in the Draft RFP.

Pre-Decisional: All content is considered draft and subject to change prior to final RFP release.

8. How will changes to the VV be managed if NASA is the visiting vehicle procurer? Would the individual CLD provider need a contract with NASA and each heritage VV supplier to ensure any necessary integration changes are incorporated? NASA will coordinate changes related to interfaces between Visiting Vehicles and the Destination utilizing a follow-on cargo and crew contract (TBD if current contracts will be utilized). The CLD Provider will need contracts with their respective transportation providers during the end-to-end service phase.

Safety & Mission Assurance

9. Is CLDP-REQ-3102 applicable to transportation vehicles as well as the destination? The document has been updated to be a standard (CLDP-STD-3102 Hazard Analysis and Safety Process Standard) to define the generic Safety process applicable to the Destination and Transportation. Additional updates are in work based on initial industry feedback.

10. It would be helpful to understand the rationale behind the change from REQ to standard, and whether it will be invoked through a "shall" statement (essentially making compliance with everything in 3102 a requirement) or will it be a guide with CLDP-REQ-1130 Requirements and Standards invoking it with a "should" statement? All standards will be invoked through a “shall” statement in CLDP-REQ-1130 Requirements and Standards. The commercial provider will be required to "meet the intent" of CLDP-STD-3102 Hazard Analysis and Safety Process Standard. However, some of the content in the current version is being moved to a best practices section.

11. These are encouraging words as the original 3102's direction seemed to put NASA in charge of the panels. Please clarify how this and the "Oversight vs Insight" section on slide 67 which calls out oversight of Type 1/2 DRDs including HRs will be implemented? Additional details will be provided in the Draft RFP.

12. Is there a defined path for early-TRL hardware with elevated failure probability that cannot be hosted safely on a crewed station but is essential for rapid TRL advancement? All hardware and software that is intended to be utilized on the CLDS will need to be analyzed and verified through the Phased Safety Review Process to meet the intent of CLDP-STD-3102 Hazard Analysis and Safety Standards Process to ensure the safety of the crew. Low TRL hardware can be demonstrated on Destinations as long as hazards are identified, controlled and mitigated to levels of acceptable risk.

Proposed Medical Requirements

13. To ensure that the minimum medical & behavioral standards and medical evaluation requirements do not overly constrain future access to space for providers who may not meet historical NASA medical standards but may still be able to safely fly with appropriate risk mitigations, we recommend that industry be provided an opportunity for review and provide feedback on these requirements during their development. NASA’s proposed medical requirements will be released with the Draft RFP, which will allow industry an opportunity to comment.

14. What NASA oversight or counter parts will there be for CLD? Chief Medical Officer, Flight Surgeon, etc. The agency is still evaluating NASA positions required for oversight/insight activities and expects to staff a Program Medical Officer and a Crew Surgeon (operational), as well as other clinical specialists (e.g. behavioral practitioners).

Pre-Decisional: All content is considered draft and subject to change prior to final RFP release.

15. Since the intent of the minimum medical and behavioral NASA standards is not to disqualify crew members, would the sole responsibility of disqualification of crew then rest upon the CLD Partner? Crew certification is the responsibility of the CLD Provider. However, as a key stakeholder, NASA expects to participate in the assessment and deliberations process for certification to ensure there is acceptable risk to NASA crew or no unreasonable additional risk to NASA mission success (i.e., an early end of mission due to a medical emergency would impact NASA services)

16. Would NASA pay for special medical accommodations (special diets, more monitoring, etc.)

for their astronauts if deemed necessary in a joint decision by the CLD company's medical authorities and NASA flight surgeons? This would be evaluated as part of the mission service order and would be negotiated if warranted.

17. While NASA has well established psych screening and training program for their government missions, how is NASA astronaut training and psych support changing now that they will be part of mixed crew (private astronauts, IP Agency Astros, non-IP agency astronauts)? This will be very different missions than they are used to with different stressors. NASA is evaluating this scenario and expects to coordinate this solution post-contract award.

18. Can we expect NASA crew to participate in contractor-led team building activities? NASA will participate in all agreed-to contractor’s requirements. NASA expects that all crew will form a team and train together.

19. Can NASA be more explicit when speaking of expectations where they are relevant for USG crew vs commercial crew? (e.g. multimodal assessments for psych suitability- are they levying this as a requirement for USG crew, crew on the same vehicle as USG crew, vs ANY crew going to the commercial station)? This is important to be sure we are not talking past one another during requirements development. The medical requirements are applicable to all crewmembers who will be on-orbit within the same increment of USG crew but are expected as best practices for all crews.

20. Does NASA expect to levy medical/behavioral qualifications for non-NASA crew? For missions where their crew will not be on our Station? The medical requirements are applicable to all crewmembers that will be on-orbit within the same increment of USG crew.

This is expected as a best practice for all crews.

21. Does NASA expect to have access to non-NASA crew medical history and lab/imaging results? NASA will require access to all data necessary to assess the risks to its USG crews and mission. This may include access to some non-NASA crew medical data.

22. Referring to the following: Include NASA as a participant in the assessment and disposition of medical, behavioral, and psychological suitability risk of non-USG crew to assess propagated risk to USG crew or to the NASA mission. What level of participation is NASA expecting?

Providers will be expected to deliver a crew selection and medical qualification plan that must be approved by NASA. Details of NASA’s participation and insight will be finalized at that time.

23. What work is NASA doing to release historical medical risk assessment decisions and outcomes to help inform the commercial space medical risk assessment community? The paucity of data that is in the public domain limits CLD providers from learning from NASA and its international partners experiences in LEO and translating to commercial crew. Offering the services of their Aerospace Medicine Board (AMB) to CLD as opposed to releasing this data

Pre-Decisional: All content is considered draft and subject to change prior to final RFP release.

keeps this rich set of data as government institutional expertise and creates a bottleneck, especially considering current government funding cuts. NASA recognizes the importance of this data and continually works to provide increased access to such data, which informs the community of the agency’s policies and decisions while first and foremost protecting sensitive Protected Health Information (PHI).

24. Will this be part of the 1130 (Referring to Proposed Medical Requirements Slide 12)? Minimum medical standards will be documented in a new standard document (Medical Standards and Capabilities CLDP-STD-1123) that will be called out as a requirement in CLDP-REQ-1130 Requirements and Standards and CLDP-STD-1150 Operations Standards.

25. Would NASA accept the CLD Provider's board determination that a NASA crewmember they have assigned to a commercial flight is not suitable for that mission? NASA will comply with all agreed-to commercial provider’s requirements and processes for crew certification and expects joint discussions to be held prior to a determination.

26. What is the process for acceptance of risk to NASA crewmembers on a GFF mission, vs on a non-GFF commercial mission? NASA does not expect the process to be significantly different.

Utilization Requirements and Approach

27. Our understanding is that the unpressurized cargo requirements outlined in CLDP-REQ-1130 will be changed to "should" statements as part of the restructuring of utilization requirements. Is this a correct interpretation? NASA plans to request pricing and schedule options from offerors to provide unpressurized cargo optional services. Utilization requirements are being moved into a standard with requirements for "meets the intent" if provided. They will not be "should" statements.

28. When will the new Utilization Standard 'CLDP-STD-1106' be released? NASA will release updated requirements and standards documents NLT Draft RFP.

29. Is utilization defined solely as payload operations? Station maintenance, construction, EVA and other non-science related activities are essential skills NASA astronauts need to develop for Exploration purposes. “Utilization” (as defined in CLDP-PLN-3017 Utilization Integration Plan) is the inclusive term for science, research, technology development, industrialization, education, or outreach.

30. Can NASA provide a forecast for additional utilization capabilities such as external payloads or EVA so that the CLDs can factor NASA usage into trades and analyses? NASA expects to need additional MLE volume for powered payloads, deployable payloads, stowage, an increased number of BLC items to support increased throughput, and additional data resources but cannot commit to anything above the proposed minimum buy. NASA will evaluate the offering of external, EVA, or other optional services proposed and may choose to incorporate these services as part of the base contract post-award and/or add via Pre-Priced Additional Services CLIN.

31. Please specify the prioritization of the “Analytical Tools & Lab Equipment” in CLDP-REQ-1130 R.CLDS.506. NASA is moving the requirement to the CLDP-STD-1106 Baseline Lab Capability (BLC) Standard to be provided NLT Draft RFP., grouping the hardware by function, and providing a link to timing needs.

32. What lab-to-lab turnaround cadence does NASA require for pharma or life-science samples, and will ≤48-hour autonomous capsule return be scored favorably compared with waiting for

Pre-Decisional: All content is considered draft and subject to change prior to final RFP release.

the next crew-cargo vehicle? NASA requirements are defined in CLDP-REQ-1130 Requirements and Standards and CLDP-STD-1106 Baseline Lab Capability (BLC) Standard.

Updates to be provided NLT Draft RFP. NASA expects payload-specific needs to be captured in mission level documentation.

33. The recently released utilization requirements have been very helpful. We request NASA to provide average power/usage duty cycle for both lab equipment and payload MLEs. Table 2 and Table 3 include the assumptions that we made for this RFI response. NASA is working to provide industry with power values in CLDP-REQ-1130 Requirements and Standards related to what NASA plans to manifest to be provided NLT Draft RFP. NASA also will provide, as a reference in CLDP-STD-1106 Baseline Lab Capability (BLC) Standard, the hardware power values of the similar BLC equipment on ISS.

IOC/CC/FOC Definitions

34. How many external sites does NASA require at IOC, CC, and FOC? NASA is not planning to require a specific number of external sites at this time and is looking for offerors to identify sites as part of the proposal.

35. In the table under IOC, it shows that the number of NASA crew is 2 and the minimum number of total crew on the CLD is 2. This would indicate that NASA is OK with only having NASA crew on the CLD during IOC. Previously, NASA has maintained that their crew would primarily be doing NASA stuff and the CLD based crew would be responsible for CLD operations. Is this a correct interpretation? Yes, NASAs minimum requirements under an IOC configuration is two

(2) NASA crew.

36. A LEO Destination supporting four (4) total crew members, including two (2) NASA Crewmembers continuously on-orbit with indirect or direct Crew handover for increments of a minimum of six (6) months duration. Previously, NASA had used the term "up to 2 crew". In the past, NASA has maintained that they could have 1 crew on 2 different CLDs. Is it still possible that NASA would have only 1 crew on a CLD? NASA is currently planning to procure services for two (2) NASA crew members as part of the minimum mission service order.

Additional seats or services could be purchased if needed and available. The concept for multiple CLDs will depend on CLD Provider business case requirements, NASA’s needs, and its budget. Alternating increments is an option.

37. Does NASA anticipate requiring a deployment capability from internal to external platforms and/or from the station? Can NASA further describe future desired internal deployable payloads? The term 'deployable payload' is being used in this case (on this slide) to reference pressurized payloads/investigations/activities that do not fit the heritage or non-heritage locker location form factor or interfaces. Deployable payloads could be hand-held, could be temporarily mounted to structure such as a wall or workbench, or could be free floating.

38. Are the MLE and stowage requirements listed the total expected capability for the station in these timeframes, or the total needed to support NASA objectives only? If the latter, does this encompass only NASA utilization requirements, or also NASA crewmember provisions & supplies? The MLE and stowage values listed are the estimated volumes associated with only NASA utilization needs and does not include NASA crewmember provisions and supplies.

39. Slide #31 - Does that imply NASA accepts flying crew to uncertified destinations prior to FOC?

Do requirements not apply for iteratively built stations until they are fully completed? FOC

Pre-Decisional: All content is considered draft and subject to change prior to final RFP release.

refers to the full capabilities that NASA requires to support services. These requirements for the full capabilities extend beyond what is considered human rating/certification. For NASA to send USG astronauts to a destination, it will need to be certified. For each iteration, the vehicle certification will have to be updated. The crewed demonstration flight will likely only be partially certified with open items known and risk accepted.

40. Please confirm the quantity of conditioned stowage at FOC. At CC, BLS states Conditioned Stowage (Frozen – 3MLE), but there is no conditioned stowage statement for FOC. The current estimated needs by FOC are approximately: 8 MLE frozen, 8 MLE refrigerated, and 3 MLE incubated. NASA plans to continue to review needs and will further update values as required. Updates to be provided NLT Draft RFP.

41. The requirements are not clear on what is expected in the Lab/Facilities. Are there any components that need to be added or deleted? For Pharmacy Locker and Edge Computing Facility, what Standard Facilities do they include? NASA is updating BLC to enable flexibility for implementation, clarifying, and moving the remaining BLC requirements to CLDP-STD- 1106 to be provided NLT Draft RFP.

42. Does NASA plan to allow providers to utilize NASA astronaut crew time to support CLD outfitting and configuration activities? If so, how much crew time would be available for provider-specific tasks? Inclusion of USG Crew in on-orbit demonstration missions or outfitting activities may be possible if requested and will require a risk assessment to identify safety risks and risk acceptance by the agency.

43. In reference to Slide 3 of IOC/CC/FOC, tier B, a workbench is listed here but not explicitly in the 1130 requirements document. Is this the “optical bench” from the 1130 requirements?

This RFI lists an Edge Computing facility as a BLC but not in the 1130 requirements document.

Can you clarify these and their associated functional requirements as was done for the other BLC in the 1130 requirements?" NASA is updating BLC reducing timing and needs to enable flexibility for implementation, clarifying, and moving the remaining BLC requirements to CLDP-STD-1106 Baseline Lab Capability (BLC) Standard.

44. This RFI specifically called out Wetlab and Bio Sequencer but not explicitly in the 1130 requirements. Can you confirm that Wetlab and Bio Sequencer are part of the generic “protein analysis” lab analytical capabilities listed in the 1130 requirements BLC? NASA is updating BLC reducing timing and needs to enable flexibility for implementation, clarifying, and moving the remaining BLC requirements to CLDP-STD-1106 Baseline Lab Capability (BLC) Standard. Updates to be provided NLT Draft RFP.

45. The cell/tissue facility mentioned in the RFI was not mentioned explicitly in the 1130 requirements. Can you elaborate on what a cell/tissue facility is and the associated functional requirements as was done for the other BLC in the 1130 requirements? NASA is updating BLC reducing timing and needs to enable flexibility for implementation, clarifying, and moving the remaining BLC requirements to CLDP-STD-1106 Baseline Lab Capability (BLC) Standard.

46. In reference to Slide 3 of IOC/CC/FOC, Tier C, this RFI explicitly lists a Pharmacy Locker in Tier C BLC, but the locker is not specifically mentioned in NASA’s 1130 requirements by this name. Can you clarify what the locker is and its associated functional requirements? Is this a medical capability or a science facility? NASA is updating BLC reducing timing and needs to

Pre-Decisional: All content is considered draft and subject to change prior to final RFP release.

enable flexibility for implementation, clarifying, and moving the remaining BLC requirements to CLDP-STD-1106 Baseline Lab Capability (BLC) Standard.

47. In reference to Slide 3 in IOC/CC/OFC, Tier D; when would we expect to receive the functional requirements for the small animal/organism (invertebrates) capabilities in FOC+? NASA is updating BLC reducing timing and needs based on projected demand levels and timing profile and removing the category of FOC+.

48. Can you provide details on payload needs, including the quantity of payload locations that require vacuum access, specialty gases, and high power (over 500 W). NASA will evaluate as part of Utilization requirements updates in work.

49. Can NASA provide details on the expected logistics margins? NASA plans to procure capabilities, and the projected planned minimum usage is the main driver for the values listed for IOC, CC, and FOC. NASA may procure different amounts of BLC depending on research needs for a particular mission. Logistics margins and sparing to enable said capabilities will be up to the Provider.

50. It would be helpful to receive more specific interface and operational requirements, where known, for unique research subsystems. For example, will CLDs be asked to support rodent research? If so, will preferred habitats be provided, or requested from the CLD? Will ground facilities and personnel for animal housing and care be provided and operated by NASA, or requested from the CLD? NASA will evaluate as part of Utilization requirements updates in work. At this time, there are no plans for NASA to request CLD support for rodent research.

Operations & Training

51. Does NASA intend to staff a Mission Control Center (MCC) for NASA crew and/or payload operations independent from the CLD MCC? Yes, NASA intends to have a streamlined support team at MCC-H and Payload Operations and Integration Center (POIC) to support NASA crew and NASA payload operations. This plan will be finalized post-contract award based on the provider’s architecture and real-time support plans.

52. Slide #32 - Many of the responsibilities described herein would ultimately be the responsibility of the launch provider. For the period where NASA will provide its own transportation services, will NASA provide clear guidance on which of these responsibilities it will assume itself as a result and which will remain with the CLD provider? NASA will provide guidance on which associated activities NASA will be responsible for during the time period that NASA is providing Transportation.

53. How does NASA envision handling scenarios where the scope of NASA's general astronaut candidate training overlaps with a providers general astronaut candidate training? NASA's Astronaut Candidate (ASCAN) training will likely occur years in advance of assignment to a CLD. Credit consideration and currency requirements are expected to be negotiated with the provider for each increment crew.

54. Can NASA provide further definition on the concept of joint go/no go authority and when joint flight rules are required vs being able to operate under internal rules (with appropriate NASA insight into these provided)? Will this be documented in CLDP-STD-1150 (Operations Standards)? NASA will provide more clarification in the draft RFP and CLDP-STD-1150 Operations and Standards.

Pre-Decisional: All content is considered draft and subject to change prior to final RFP release.

55. To what extent does NASA have existing systems they wish to interface with a providers developed console software? Will NASA provide additional guidance on what requirements there are for use of CLD console tools? This will be negotiated and finalized post-contract award and is dependent on the Provider’s mission operations plans, control center approach, and architecture.

56. As NASA will be supplying the initial set of crew and cargo vehicles, who will take the lead on developing these planning products and processes, VV provider or the CLD provider? This is expected to be a joint effort depending on each party’s role and responsibility. (i.e., the Transportation provider will still be responsible for transportation vehicle crew training and products). The CLD Provider would be responsible for on-orbit vehicle training and products.

Details will be worked out post-contract award.

57. Will NASA require CLD providers to coordinate our CLD Standards with other CLD providers?

If so, who takes the lead on such coordination/consolidation? It is expected that the commercial provider will flow down applicable requirements and standards to lower-level subcontracts as these are applicable to the CLD System (CLDS). If NASA makes multiple awards, NASA may incentivize contractor collaboration on standards to promote interoperability.

58. Does crew team training include mission (astronaut) crew team setup? Crew team training refers to anyone who will be involved in the crew activities such as crew support personnel.

59. Does NASA expect to engage in all Operational Planning (as described to the left) or just the flights with NASA personnel? NASA expects to engage in operational planning associated with NASA crew and payloads. NASA may request insight into non-NASA operations to ensure they do not impact or pose a risk to NASA or NASA crew. NASA plans to certify all processes where NASA crew or assets will interface.

60. Is the approach noted for all CLD specific operations or just NASA crewed operations (as the assumption is that the Station has been Certified to NASA standards)? Operations and Training plans should be developed for all CLD operations, inclusive of NASA planned operations.

CLD System Certification

61. Is CBR intended to be Certification or Contract baseline review? 2 months after award is likely too early to begin certification products / baseline. A more typical approach would be to outline the overall planned approach, but additional design maturity would be required before a certification baseline could be established. The CBR is intended to be a Certification Baseline Review that will be the first contract milestone review. The scope is being limited to expected maturity and NASA expects overall agreement on the high-level architecture and evolutionary approach driving certification milestones.

62. For CLD On-orbit Demonstration, does the crewed on-orbit demo need to be completed prior to the first NASA crew mission? Or can it be done in conjunction with the first NASA crew mission? Inclusion of USG Crew in on-orbit demonstration missions may be possible if requested and will require a risk assessment to identify safety risks and risk acceptance by the agency.

Pre-Decisional: All content is considered draft and subject to change prior to final RFP release.

63. Will reviews need to be held in accordance with NPR 7123 or some other standard? NASA does not plan to levy NPR 7123 Engineering Processes and Requirements or other standards.

Detailed entrance and exit criteria for milestones will be provided as part of the Draft RFP. The commercial provider will partner with NASA’s final approach for conducting milestone reviews.

64. If an element is the same or highly similar in design to an existing element, is an IDR still required? The purpose of the IDR is to gain insight and partner forward plans with the commercial provider(s) to understand development and overall progress towards the final on-orbit configuration. It is expected that an IDR for a similar element would still be required but scope could be reduced based on joint agreement. The Commercial Provider(s) may propose tailoring or combining of reviews to align with the CLDS design and the Commercial Provider’s approach.

65. NASA requesting repeat PDR/CDR etc. for evolutionary approaches could be unnecessarily duplicative. Can we eliminate duplicative reviews and only hold delta reviews if necessary for modules that are substantially different than a previous one? The Commercial Provider(s) may propose tailoring or combining reviews to align with the CLDS design and the Commercial Provider’s approach.

66. Is the on-orbit demonstration and certification plan part of the RFP response or something that is determined post RFP award? The commercial Provider(s) are expected to respond to all of the requirements in the RFP, including planned approach for certification and an on-orbit demonstration.

67. What would trigger a NASA-led mishap/failure review board versus a Provider-led board?

Details associated with mishap plans will be finalized post-contract award and will follow NASA guidelines.

68. The ""Certification Baseline Review (CBR) (~ 2 months after Contract Award)"" would place all reviews on the list following contract award, meaning the full review cycle is expected to occur within 3 years. Is this a correct interpretation? Does NASA accept reviews already performed under the current SAA (i.e. PDR) or is a delta-PDR required? Does NASA intend to provide additional funding for certification of capabilities added later that are not part of the initial baseline? How will these milestones integrate with the mission integration review process detailed in a later section? NASA recognizes the current DDTE schedule is aggressive at three years and is evaluating this prior to Draft RFP release. NASA is not planning to accept reviews conducted under SAAs as they were not based on the contract requirement set and a delta PDR will be required. NASA is open to tailoring milestone reviews based on provider’s recommendation. NASA will purchase additional capabilities under a specific CLIN. Pricing details and delta certification requirements will be negotiated at that time (post-award).

69. As NASA will be supplying the initial set of crew and cargo vehicles, who will take the lead on certifying to the new destination, NASA or the provider? For Government-provided transportation, delta certification would be covered under NASA Visiting Vehicle contracts.

70. Does NASA plan to contract CLDP for executing demo mission for them or are CLDP providers expected to carry them out under own responsibility (and budget)? The CLDP provider is expected to define and execute the on-orbit demonstration. NASA plans to contract under CLIN 1C to execute a demo mission. The CLDP provider can propose NASA provides government provided transportation for the crewed demonstration, which would require the

Pre-Decisional: All content is considered draft and subject to change prior to final RFP release.

use of NASA astronauts and completion of required certification. If the CLD Provider chooses to man the destination prior to NASA Certification, government- furnished transportation could not be utilized.

Oversight & Insight Approach

71. What aspects will the Trusted Vendor Authorization cover and what types of work does NASA plan to develop a TVA process for? NASA is still evaluating the implementation of this process and expects the process to apply to safety, operations, and utilization. The process is meant to reduce overall NASA oversight and insight over time. More details will be provided in the Draft RFP.

72. Would NASA consider a cost-plus based approach for areas where the contractor has satisfied the requirement and NASA non-concurs with the approach or requires additional action, investigation, analysis and/or design/test changes? NASA is not considering a Cost- Plus contract.

73. Oversight activities include ""Crew selection for NASA missions"". Does this mean that for NASA GFF missions, NASA will take over the crew assignment process, exercise veto power over the CLD Provider's process, or participate in the process as a voting board member? Will CLD Provider standards apply, or NASA's?" Details on NASA minimum standards to be included in the Provider’s crew selection process will be included in the draft RFP

Mission Integration

74. There are several areas in this section where the CLDP and NASA co-lead (e.g., FRR)-what if there is a disagreement/difference in philosophy that results in a stalemate? Is there another body that exists for appeals/reviews? NASA is evaluating this scenario and will provide further clarification in the Draft RFP.

75. To ensure clarity and compliance, it is important to address the following question regarding NASA's role and international regulations: Will NASA have any input regarding what commercial payloads can and can't do? Are there designated countries that the CLDP cannot offer services to? NASA is evaluating this scenario and will provide further clarification in the Draft RFP.

76. What is the rationale for proposing IORR and FRR to be Jointly led co-chaired milestones instead of contractor led like the other milestones? Final mission milestone reviews may include some amount of risk acceptance, especially during early development and demonstration missions. All missions with USG crew will require Agency approval.

77. Is the intent that the mission integration process and reviews are scoped only to NASA mission content? If mission increments are mixed NASA and other customers, is the expectation that these reviews cover all mission aspects, or only those pertaining to NASA missions? It is expected that the mission integration and CoFR milestones for NASA only or for mixed missions will include the full scope of the mission in order to understand the readiness for the integrated mission. Details of implementation will be developed by NASA and the contractor post-contract award. NASA expects there may be requests to limit the details of other customers’ information in open forums.

78. For NASA manifest items (supplies for crew, supplies for investigations, etc.) what is the coordination between NASA and CLDs planned to be? Does NASA procure 2 crew members

Pre-Decisional: All content is considered draft and subject to change prior to final RFP release.

worth of supplies from CLD or does NASA come with their supplies packed? NASA is currently planning crew services to include full outfitting including food, clothing, and supplies other than crew preference items.

79. Slide 77: Can NASA make the example image a full slide so we can better see the level of detail that's trying to be conveyed? The image was intended as an example only and was a thumbnail of the ISS Flight Plan. A publicly available image of the ISS Flight Plan is available on chart 6 in this package. https://cms.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/672401main_12- 07_HEO.pdf

80. Is the understanding correct that NASA's authority in CoFR is limited to the scope of the NASA task order, not including parts of the mission executed for third parties? NASA’s responsibilities for CoFR will be comprised of endorsing the full requirements levied on commercial providers have been met in accordance with the contract, as well as endorsing any contribution that NASA makes a part of the CLDS. NASA expects to have insight into the full mission plan including third party activities as they may impact the mission or NASA crew/equipment safety.

81. For what duration and for how many missions does NASA foresee supplying crew and cargo services? This is still in evaluation and will be updated prior to the Draft RFP.

82. Is NASA envisioning a bartering scheme with CLD Providers to trade provision of services with missions and/or manifests? NASA is not expecting to outline a barter scheme within the RFP but does expect post-contract award to develop joint process with Commercial Provider for tracking and managing changes within the mission task orders. NASA reserves the right to develop bilateral agreements with OGA/International Partners for mission services that benefit NASA.

Government-Furnished Services/Equipment

83. In the event that NASA sells excess transportation capability to the CLDP, would NASA retain overall ownership and authority of the excess capability and be responsible for the additional cargo and/or crew integration? Or would the expectation be that the transportation provider would develop separate contract relationships and manage the integration of these capabilities? NASA would retain ownership of the entire mission capability for crew and cargo and would be responsible for any services offered as part of that mission. The transportation provider would not be responsible for selling or coordinating the use of any excess capacity.

84. Considering that the 15-day and 30-day response periods are a significant portion of the overall RFP response timeline; can draft agreements be submitted before the Final RFP release? Draft agreements can be coordinated with the NASA POCs (see Center Services Charts posted on sam.gov in Technical Library) and the NASA performing organization prior to the Final RFP posting.

85. Is the quarantine facility at the Cape no longer to be considered a government furnished facility? CLD Providers are responsible for providing quarantine capabilities, including facilities. However, a CLD Provider may request use of NASA facilities via a GTA (if related to the contract) or a RSAA (if non-contract related use), which is to be coordinated with the relevant NASA Center based on the Center's availability.

86. Proposed crew rescue – is this using current Gov’t DOD rescue forces, or will this be using contracted rescue forces based on the newly released RFP, or would NASA purchase this https://cms.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/672401main_12-07_HEO.pdf https://cms.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/672401main_12-07_HEO.pdf

Pre-Decisional: All content is considered draft and subject to change prior to final RFP release.

service from a Provider? NASA will provide crew rescue services as part of GFS crew transportation. NASA may continue to utilize DOD or may choose to transition to a commercial vendor. During the End-to-End service phase of the contract, the CLD Provider is expected to contract with a commercial provider for crew rescue services.

87. What does it mean that NASA may choose to on ramp new certified vehicle or utility int’l vehicles? Depending on the length of time NASA agrees to provide government-furnished transportation, NASA reserves the right to utilize heritage visiting vehicles or future new U.S.

or International transportation capabilities as they become available.

88. How will a CLD provider design and account for variability in interfaces for an unknown set of vehicles? NASA plans to provide a standardized visiting vehicle interface requirements set in the RFP. Additionally, the number and type of government-provided transportation vehicles will be negotiated along with cost impacts to the CLD Provider as part of contract award.

89. NASA must define a set of assumed GFF missions they will purchase and the excess capability available to CLDs as a baseline standard consistent for each bid. It is unclear how much NASA needs for themselves and what is available. NASA will define crew and utilization services including up/down mass as part of a standard increment service. The total number of government-furnished transportation will be proposed by each offeror and negotiated as part of the contract.

90. Why are GTAs limited to partners with existing funded agreements? GTAs are not limited to partners with existing funded agreements and are available to all providers. Rather, GTAs are a contractual mechanism and can be used to request services from NASA if an offeror is awarded a CLD contract. RSAAs are a mechanism whereby CLD Providers can work directly with NASA Centers for needed services and are not directly tied to the CLD contract. Pre-coordination with NASA organizations for potential GTAs and RSAAs in support of the CLD contract is encouraged to begin as soon as practical in order for the CLD Provider(s) to assess what NASA service(s) is/are needed and to develop a cost estimate to potentially be included in the offeror's proposal.

91. Slide # 92 - Is this slide in reference to opportunities that may exist prior to CLD Phase 2 awards? Or is it in reference to a post-award Phase 2 context? GTAs become part of the contract after award if the commercial provider submits the request as part of its proposal and if the NASA Program approves it. RSAAs are independent of an RFP and can be negotiated at any time directly with the NASA organization providing the service.

92. If a GTA requires that a partner have an existing funded NASA contract, can a CLD offeror tentatively explore and propose GTA opportunities as part of its CLD proposal with an assumption that they are only enacted if the offeror is selected? Or is this avenue only available to offerors that have funded NASA contracts pre-RFP? Commercial providers can explore potential GTAs during development of their CLD proposals. NASA Programs determine whether to approve GTA requests and once approved, these GTAs become part of the contract. RSAAs are a viable mechanism that are not tied to or dependent on any specific NASA contract and may provide additional flexibility.

93. Clarify involvement of the CLD medical team and science teams in emergency response, rescue, and data collection. These are not specified as collaborators. Additionally, for flights with mixed NASA and non-NASA crew, does NASA plan to extend emergency response and rescue services to include these individuals? NASA will have to work with the CLD provider to

Pre-Decisional: All content is considered draft and subject to change prior to final RFP release.

finalize details for services during government provided transportation phase. Services provided by the government are expected to be offered for the full complement of crew but there could be exceptions. For PAMs or during end-to-end services, these services will have to be negotiated or coordinated via GTA or RSAA.

94. CLD providers should have representatives permitted to participate in at least some of the activities denoted here as being the responsibility of the Transportation provider, particularly landing and recovery team and crew rescue & return team. For mixed missions, NASA would expect the CLD Provider’s participation in some activities. Details will be coordinated post-contract award.

95. How does NASA envision these potential additional areas of collaboration to be structured?

Would they be required by the RFP, or would NASA expect offerors to propose these collaborations as well? NASA expects offerors to propose areas for collaboration as part of the proposal that would also be available post-contract award for consideration. NASA may identify areas of preference for collaboration to be finalized prior to the Final RFP.

96. Will the GFP be provided rent-free under the CLDC contract? If so, how will NASA prioritize use of GFP between multiple CLDC contractor holders? Inherently, GFP will be provided Rent Free, but the value of the property is to be considered with the providers total proposed price to adjust for the value of the property provided. NASA is still considering how to evaluate prioritizations. New GFP provided after contract award would require consideration to be provided by the contractor. NASA will provide additional information on availability of the Government Furnish hardware and associated processes in the draft RFP.

97. Will GFP – no longer desired by NASA under the COMM LEO CONOPS – become available for direct sale to CLDC contractor holder(s)? If so, is this through NASA property disposition/processes, limited GSA sale to CLDC contractors, or OTA? The Draft RFP will include specific property clauses and instructions regarding the transfer of GFP.

98. Will GFP be provided to CLDC contractors via separate agreements (Space Act Annexes or OTA)? Any agreed to GFP will only be provided via the CLD Contract.

99. Provide additional clarification regarding the scope of GFS/GFE availability — particularly, the extent to which support will include the “…delivery of CLD Critical Systems or components”.

For example, does “delivery” refer to NASA's assistance with manifesting and transporting provider-designed hardware via NASA missions for on-orbit integration, or does it also include the development, testing, and potential provisioning of systems deemed critical to CLD?

Delivery is meant to be the delivery on the ground of the agreed to test location of flight hardware or equipment. Integration of the Government Furnished hardware or equipment into the overall system and transportation to orbit will be the responsibility of the commercial provider.

100. Does NASA intend to subsidize the transport costs for Phase II awardees? During GFS Transportation, NASA expects to offer Crew or Cargo services or excess capacity at market value.

Business & Commercialization Plan

101. While we understand the need for additional NASA insight into overall financial viability of CLD providers, the questions as presented could be construed as overly broad overreach.

The extent to which detailed company financial information is expected to flow down to

Pre-Decisional: All content is considered draft and subject to change prior to final RFP release.

subcontractors, and also back up to NASA through prime contractors, is currently undefined.

These requirements should be scoped to allow for the provision of specific targeted data and/or to allow for exemptions for entities with clearly demonstratable financial viability.

NASA seeks to ascertain the provider’s level of financial stability. The RFP plans to use similar requirements found in recent NASA contracts that have required insight into offerors' financial information. There is currently no expectation that financial information is flowed down to subcontractors.

102. While understanding the desire for insight into provider financial security though level of investors and shareholders, this appears counter to the commercial intent of procuring for services and 1 of many customers. The US Gov't is not an investor, but rather is choosing the avenue of an FFP for a portion of the certification, and 50% or less of the operations contract.

The US Gov’t is not a risk (equity) holder of the private company. Alternatively, recommend NASA and the selected CLD winners be required or agree to mutually provide some global commercial and financial KPIs to ensure/track the overall health of the company. Such information could include: every year high level 5yr. operating plan (i.e. Budget of next year + 4yr. forecast), quarterly or yearly tracking on actuals with some selected KPIs such as Order Intake, Order Backlog, Schedule. The RFP will include a requirement for a Commercialization Plan that will outline the financial aspects of what NASA plans to evaluate.

Contract Approach

103. It is incredibly challenging for us to provide pricing for services that will occur significantly far in the future. Is our understanding correct that the prices identified as "TBD" in this table will not need to be defined as part of the initial RFP? The TBDs on page 103-105 were to represent the total CLIN price at an overview level. NASA plans to define a reasonable period to require pricing for Certification, End-to-End CLD Services, Additional Services, and Labor Rates for Special Studies for the entire contract’s period of performance.

104. Is the proposed on-ramp clause only applicable to the IDIQ Mission Service Orders or also applicable to the certification of an additional system certification through demonstration?

The On-Ramp clause is applicable to all CLINs and is expected to on-ramp a provider from certification to services. While it may be possible to On-Ramp a CLD Provider straight to a services CLIN if the CLD has already been certified outside of the CLD Contract, this remains under consideration by NASA as the RFP is developed.

105. How does the follower/leader concept relate to the future on-ramp concept? The implementation of a Leader Follower approach is still in work by NASA. More information on this approach will be provided in a subsequent RFI or Industry Briefing.

106. How will the contract and requirements be adjusted for a “Follower” and will the “Follower” be allowed to terminate or decline award if no longer interested after a delay period? The implementation of a Leader Follower approach is still being defined by NASA and more information on this approach will be provided in a subsequent RFI or Industry Briefing.

107. Will earned value management (EVM) be a requirement? EVM will not be a contract requirement.

108. Is there any additional insight NASA can share regarding current thoughts on breakdown in size of contract across build, certification, and demonstration along with size of minimum-buy guarantee and Mission Services Orders? NASA does not currently have workload or value

Pre-Decisional: All content is considered draft and…