CLPS2 Draft RFP Q-A Release 5.28.26.pdf

Ref No.

Reference:

Appendix A or

DRFP

Question: Response

1 DRFP

Will the CLPS 2.0 solicitation allow for commercial transportation solutions to destinations defined in the SOW, that would not provide a landing on the lunar surface? (i.e. OTV mission).

No, the CLPS2 solicitation will not allow for commercial transportation solutions to destinations defined in the SOW, such as those that would not provide a landing on the lunar surface. At this time, NASA expects the bulk of CLPS2 task orders will be for lunar surface delivery. CLPS2 is soliciting vendors that can credibly meet NASA's expected requirements for delivery of payloads to the Moon and other locations. NASA will consider any delivery architecture that meets our requirements. Technical evaluation criteria in the final RFP will be intended to evaluate a vendor by verifying they possess either a flight-proven technical foundation from complex orbital missions, a capability to build a fully assembled and rigorously tested lunar lander ready for immediate deployment, or a demonstrated track record of successful, scalable payload delivery to the lunar surface.

2 DRFP

Will the CLPS 2.0 solicitation allow for a transportation delivery architecture solution that includes a separation in transportation and lander spacecraft?

(i.e. a separate transportation spacecraft could meet up with a lander vehicle in the lunar vicinity (LLO) to accomplish the mission) see question 1 response

3 DRFP Can the RFP be updated to allow for an OTV solution to be proposed and evaluated separately from lander solutions? see question 1 response

4 DRFP

How does NASA envision the role of orbital transfer vehicles or in-space logistics providers within CLPS 2.0 mission architectures, particularly for payload staging between launch, lunar orbit, and final delivery assets?

CLPS2 is soliciting vendors that can credibly meet NASA's expected requirements for delivery of payloads to the Moon and other locations. Vendors will be required to propose end to end solutions. Providers that can provide parts of the delivery architecture may consider subcontract opportunities with the prime vendors to participate. NASA will evaluate any end to end delivery architecture that meets its requirements.

5 DRFP

Can CLPS task orders support disaggregated mission architectures (e.g., launch provider > OTV > lander), or must a single prime provide end-to-end delivery?

see question 4 response

6 DRFP

What specific lunar orbit use cases (e.g., NRHO staging, relay, aggregation) does NASA anticipate, and how will CLPS incentivize providers offering reusable logistics capabilities in orbit?

CLPS2 is soliciting vendors that can credibly meet NASA's expected requirements for delivery of payloads to the Moon and other locations. Vendors will be required to propose end to end solutions. Therefore, NASA does not specify what orbits to be used since it is up to the individual Vendor. Vendors that can provide parts of the delivery architecture may consider subcontract opportunities with the prime vendors to participate. NASA will consider any end to end delivery architecture that meets its requirements.

7 DRFP

How will NASA evaluate mission architectures that rely on high-efficiency electric propulsion, particularly where longer transfer times trade for reduced cost and increased payload mass?

see question 1 response

8 DRFP

Will NASA include standardized interfaces for in-space transportation systems (e.g., docking, payload handoff, refueling) in CLPS 2.0 to enable interoperability between vehicles?

No, standard interfaces are not being considered as part of the CLPS2 RFP. Requirements for standard interfaces will be considered in the individual Request for Task Plans (RFTPs).

9 DRFP Can CLPS providers offer payload hosting and on-orbit operations services (prior to final delivery), and how would these be evaluated within task orders?

Individual task orders will contain requirements that pertain to the individual payloads that require delivery. These requirements will be included in the separate RFTPs that will be solicited under CLPS2. These delivery requirements are expected to mainly feature surface delivery; however other delivery locations may be solicited.

Features and characteristics of various delivery architectures will be evaluated at the task order level according to evaluation factors such as technical, cost, past performance, and schedule.

10 DRFP

What are NASA’s expectations and certification pathways for autonomous rendezvous, proximity operations, and docking (RPOD) capabilities in support of CLPS and Artemis logistics?

see question 9 response

11 DRFP How will NASA evaluate and incentivize reusable transportation assets that can support multiple payload deliveries across missions? see question 9 response

12 DRFP

Can non-lander providers (e.g., in-space transport, orbital mobility services

(OTV)) participate as prime contractors or direct CLIN providers, or only as subcontractors?

see question 4 response

13 DRFP

How does NASA envision CLPS 2.0 evolving to support high-cadence

Artemis logistics (cargo transfer, staging, redistribution) beyond initial surface delivery?

At this time, Moon Base planning is underway, and CLPS has been identified as a significant player in the lunar delivery aspects of Moon Base. Future announcements from NASA will clarify what these missions will look like.

14 DRFP

How does NASA intend to assess eligibility and compliance with “United States commercial provider”, particularly are there specific ownership % requirements if there is foreign (allied) involvement?

Eligibility as a United State (U.S.) commercial provider is identified in Clause H.16 and restricted to U.S.

commercial providers as defined by 51 United States Code §50101. Offerors are required to certify this requirement with the submission of J-8 Domestic Source Self Certification.

15 DRFP

Can NASA provide further clarification on how “domestic end product” requirements will be evaluated for vehicles, specifically with respect to component-level sourcing versus final system integration and assembly within the United States? Additionally, are there defined thresholds or expectations for U.S.-based content (e.g., percentage of materials, subsystems, or value-add) that contractors should consider when structuring their supply chains?

CLPS2 solicitation clause H.16 Domestic Source Requirements were updated in the Final RFP, reference section (b) of the clause for clarification on domestic end products, component level sourcing, and threshold.

16 DRFP Is the intent of NASA to include orbital delivery services in CLPS 2.0? see question 9 response

17 DRFP

Part I Section C 2.1, Part IV L.16.4, and Part I Section 4.1 include conflicting language around the intended contractor capabilities. Will NASA revise the

RFP to include vendors with experience building spacecraft for cislunar space rather than only lunar landing?

see question 1 response

18 DRFP

Part I Section 2.1 “Qualification and Readiness” unnecessarily descopes potential contractors with strong deep space heritage and only allows current

CLPS providers. While NASA has previously stated that part of their intention with CLPS 2.0 is to include reliable contractors for lunar destination delivery, and this readiness clause descopes contractors with relevant deep space heritage, is there an intent to align past statements with the current approach?

see question 1 response

19 DRFP Will NASA accept Classified appendices as part of the proposal submission? No, NASA cannot accept classified appendices or classified proposal material for this solicitation.

20 DRFP Can the USG please clarify the intent behind listing CLIN 0003 as FFP vs cost type given its intended use for research and technology development?

CLIN 0003 is designated as Firm‑Fixed Price (FFP) to align with the CLPS 2.0 commercial‑item acquisition model, under which all CLINs are performed via FFP task orders. Although CLIN 0003 may include studies, hardware development, or technology demonstrations, these activities are procured as commercial services, not traditional cost‑type R&D. Maintaining an FFP structure ensures consistency, efficiency, and commercially driven performance across the IDIQ.

21 DRFP

Is NASA planning to publish Classified payload requirements such as expected encrypted uplink and downlink needs, red and black separation, or integration facility requirements?

No, NASA does not plan to publish classified payload requirements as part of the CLPS2 solicitation. Any classified payload requirements will be included at the task order level.

CLPS2 Draft RFP Q&A Release May 28, 2026

22 DRFP Can you please confirm NASA’s intent to implement FAR Part 12 or FAR Part 15? Both seem to be referenced in the DRFP.

NASA is conducting this acquisition using Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) Part 12, Acquisition of Commercial Products and Commercial Services. As reflected in the draft and final RFP, the contract incorporates

FAR 52.212‑4, Terms and Conditions, Commercial Products and Commercial Services and other clauses applicable to commercial item acquisitions.

The draft and final RFP also include certain provisions and clauses that originate from FAR Part 15 (e.g., proposal instructions), but these appear only as necessary supplements to support proposal submission, evaluation, and other administrative requirements. Their inclusion does not change the overarching acquisition approach.

Accordingly, CLPS2 will be awarded as a FAR Part 12 commercial item acquisition, and NASA does not intend to conduct this procurement under FAR Part 15 negotiated contracting procedures.

23 DRFP

Can the USG please clarify whether FFP contracts will follow a standard milestone payment structure vs the cost-type detailed invoices outlined in

Section I.15?

FFP task orders under CLPS2 will use firm‑fixed‑price milestone‑based payments, consistent with commercial practice. The invoice requirements in draft RFP Section I.15 and in the final RFP as clause G.3 1852.232-80 Submission of Vouchers/Invoices for Payment are required to be included in all solicitations and contracts.

24 DRFP

Section 4.0 states the contractor is responsible for launch vehicle selection and associated operations, all taxes/tariffs, licenses, permits, and approvals necessary to perform the mission. Will the USG accept a reopener clause, REAs, or a cost reimbursable CLIN to cover the inclusion of those items allowing for risk mitigation to both the Contractor and USG?

No, NASA will not add a cost reimbursable CLIN or reopener clause. The CLPS contract is structured as primarily a commercial service and awards Firm-Fixed-Price task orders. Requirements for launch selection, taxes, and permits, are considered reasonably knowable risks within the Contractor's control and introducing such changes would fundamentally deviate from the commercial nature of the solicitation. Lastly, any request for equitable adjustment received during contract performance requires the Contractor to demonstrate how the conditions materially differ.

25 DRFP

Will USG consider acceptance (DD250) prior to launch to limit risk-driven insurance expenses where the USG can self-insure and protect/lower overall cost to the U.S. taxpayer?

No, NASA will not accept a DD250 prior to launch, except for deliveries for CLIN2.

26 DRFP Which interface domains are the highest priority for CLPS 2.0 standardization:

mechanical, electrical, data, thermal, deployment, or operations? see question 8 response

27 DRFP Does NASA prefer modular payloads that can fly in multiple hosting modes over mission-specific integrated packages?

The payloads selected to fly on CLPS2 future task orders have not yet been determined. Payload requirements will be defined with each individual task order.

28 DRFP

For payloads performing low-force surface work, what disturbance and proximity constraints should be assumed relative to other manifested payloads?

Data requirements are not being considered as part of the CLPS2 solicitation. Requirements for payload data products will be provided in the individual RFTPs.

29 DRFP Under what conditions would NASA prefer a lander-mounted implementation versus a mobility-enabled implementation? see question 9 response

30 DRFP How should subsystem providers best package engineering data products so they remain reusable across future task orders and delivery providers? see question 28 response

31 DRFP How should CLPS 2.0 address handoff interfaces between landers, rovers, robotic arms, and deployable construction payloads?

Interface characteristics are not being considered as part of the CLPS2 solicitation. Requirements for interfaces will be provided in the individual RFTPs based on the payload manifest needs.

32 DRFP What is NASA’s preferred mechanism for maturing interface standards without over constraining innovative payload architectures? see question 8 response

33 DRFP

Please confirm the final proposal volume structure and numbering. Section L/Table L-1/Table L-2 indicate Volume I Technical, Volume II

Offer/Responsibility, and Volume III Model Contract, but L.16.5 labels Responsibility as Volume III, L.16.6 labels Model Contract as Volume IV, and M.4 refers to the Model Contract as Volume V. Which volume numbering and evaluation mapping will control in the final RFP?

The Final RFP confirms that the proposal volume structure is exactly as stated in Section L: Volume I – Technical, Volume II – Offer/Responsibility, and Volume III – Model Contract. Any differing numbering references appearing elsewhere in the RFP will be updated. Section L controls.

34 DRFP

Please confirm which proposal acceptance-period requirement and offer form control in the final RFP. L.13 states proposals remain firm for at least 180 days and directs offerors to use Block 17 of SF 1442, while L.16.6 directs offerors to state 365 days in Block 12 of SF 33.

Section L.13 of the Final RFP controls and requires that proposals remain valid for 180 days. The Final RFP was also updated to reference the use of that Standard Form (SF)‑1449, not SF‑1442 or SF‑33.

35 DRFP

Please confirm the correct attachment numbering and titles. Section J lists both J-2 and J-7 as “Authorized Limited Rights and Restricted Rights Data,” while page 167 identifies J-7 as “Prime/Subcontractor Identification and SoW Division of Work Listing,” and Section L lists that same listing as Attachment

L-2.

Section J of the Final RFP contains the definitive list of attachments. J‑2 is the OCI Plan Data Requirements Description, and J‑7 is the Small Business Subcontracting Plan and Reports. J‑9 is the Authorized Limited Rights and Restricted Rights Data attachment.

36 DRFP

Can NASA please provide the FAR clauses with deviations for contractor review? Offerors require these FAR clauses in full text to know what the deviations are.

If a FAR clause is listed as “incorporated by reference” in the DRFP or the resulting contract, NASA is not required to reproduce the full text of that clause within the solicitation. Many clauses from the Revolutionary FAR Overhaul

(RFO) include the word "deviation" as part of the RFO updates. Contractors may access the full text of any incorporated‑by‑reference clause directly through the FAR, which is publicly available at Acquisition.gov or other official sources. This is standard practice under FAR 52.252‑2, Clauses Incorporated by Reference. If there is a deviation from a clause that was already deviated in RFO or NFS that will be in full text.

37 DRFP For Clause 52.243-1 (Changes-Fixed-Price with Alternative I -- April 1984), would contractors require the regular version of this Clause for CLIN 2?

Yes, the regular version of FAR 52.243‑1 will be used for CLINs 2 and 3. An amendment to the Final RFP will be issued to clarify that FAR 52.243‑1, Changes–Fixed‑Price (Alternate I) will apply to only CLIN 1.

38 DRFP

Can NASA please confirm that CLIN 2 task orders will be competed and not placed as delivery orders? We recommend:

(1) all delivery/task orders be competed;

(2) participation in a subset of CLINs and/or task orders be a sufficient definition for “active participation” (i.e., participation in all CLPS 2.0 CLINs and/or task orders is not compulsory), and;

(3) the "shall" statement from Section I.11(c) requiring contractor participation in all delivery orders be removed.

NASA intends for CLIN 2 actions to be issued as delivery orders and competed among awardees in accordance with FAR 16.505, unless a fair‑opportunity exception applies.

39 DRFP

"NASA may require delivery of a lunar lander to NASA for Government integration of payloads and encapsulation of the lunar lander onto a launch vehicle."

How does NASA plan to procure the launch service for the new supply-based CLIN 2 requirement?

NASA will address CLIN 2 launch vehicle requirements at the individual task order level.

40 DRFP

"In addition, NASA requires Government Purpose Data Rights for execution of this CLIN as further defined at the delivery order level."

Our interpretation is that the expanded Government Purpose Data Rights requirements exclusively apply to CLIN 2. Can NASA please confirm this interpretation is correct? Does this mean that all subsequent data rights requirements in Section I.8 only apply to CLIN 2?

No. As updated in the Final RFP, the requirement for 52.227-14 RIGHTS IN DATA – GENERAL (MAY 2014) (DEVIATION) (ALT II) (DEC 2007) (ALT III) AS MODIFIED BY NFS 1852.227-14 (APR 2015) the

Government Purpose Data Rights apply to CLINs 2 and 3.

41 DRFP "(a) At the time of each delivery to the Government under this contract..."

Can NASA please confirm that this requirement only applies to CLIN 2?

No, the requirement stating “At the time of each delivery to the Government under this contract…” in Material Inspection and Receiving Report (Sep 2025)(Deviation) does not only apply to CLIN 2. The requirement for the

Material Inspection and Receiving Report will be specified in the Request for Task Plan (RFTP).

42 DRFP

"(10) At a minimum of forty-five (45) business days in advance, or otherwise as expressly requested by HQ OCOMM, the Contractor shall work with the

Contracting Officer Representative ("COR") to coordinate any communications and branding requirements for any [Fill-in as appropriate, e.g., "launches, aircraft-take offs, landings, major milestones, and tests". At a minimum, "major milestones" is likely appropriate.] under this Contract."

Can NASA please clarify which launches, major milestones, and tests apply here?

Yes. The clause cited: H.8(10) has been modified. The 'launches, major milestones, tests' will be specified at the task order level. It now states: "At a minimum of forty-five (45) business days in advance, or otherwise as expressly requested by HQ OCOMM, the Contractor shall work with the Contracting Officer Representative (“COR”) to coordinate any communications and branding requirements for any [Fill-in to be identified at the task order level.

E.g., “launches, aircraft-take offs, landings, major milestones, and tests”.

43 DRFP

"(c) The Contractor shall obtain a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) license or permit, in accordance with 51 U.S.C. Subtitle V, Chapter 509, Commercial Space Launch Activities, Title 51, National and Commercial

Space Programs, Subtitle V, Programs Targeting Commercial Opportunities, for operations under this contract."

For CLIN 1, our understanding is that this requirement would be flowed to the launch service provider chosen by the contractor. For CLIN 2, would NASA

(as the party responsible for procuring the launch service) levy this requirement on the launch service provider?

For CLIN 2 if NASA is the party responsible for procuring the launch service, then NASA would manage the launch requirements directly with the launch service provider.

44 DRFP

"(e) The Contractor shall operate its vehicles in accordance with NPR 8715.6, NASA Procedural Requirements for Limiting Orbital Debris."

For CLIN 1, is it correct to presume that this requirement would be flowed to the launch service provider chosen by the contractor? For CLIN 2, would

NASA (as the party responsible for procuring the launch service) and not the lander provider levy this requirement on the launch service provider?

For CLIN 1, while the launch service provider must comply with orbital debris requirements for the launch vehicle and upper stages, the contractor remains responsible for the "total mission" compliance. For CLIN 2, the Contractor must still design the vehicle to be compliant with NPR 8715.6 and NASA will procure the launch service and manage those requirements with the provider.

45 DRFP

"SF 1442 (TBD)"

Can NASA please provide the SF 1442 document?

SF 1442 was incorrectly referenced. The SF 1449 was released with the Final RFP and posted to Sam.gov

46 DRFP

"TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY FACTOR (Volume I)"

Should be: "TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY CRITERIA (Volume I)"

Based on the description, can NASA confirm that this section is intended to represent the evaluation criteria, and not the "acceptable," "potentially acceptable," or "unacceptable" ratings?

Yes. NASA confirms that section M.2 labeled “TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY FACTOR (Volume I)” is intended to describe the evaluation criteria, not the adjectival ratings themselves. The labels “acceptable,”

“potentially acceptable,” and “unacceptable” are separate rating identified in section M.1 and applied after NASA evaluates.

47 DRFP

"Prior to performance of the CLPS SoW under any CLIN, the Contractor shall provide completed evidence of readiness to proceed with performing an initial, reliable landed mission under this contract."

We recommend that representative lander sub-assembly testing be required to fulfill the past performance on-ramp eligibility requirement.

Our understanding is that the demonstrated landing/test requirement is required at time of delivery/task proposal and not at time of IDIQ proposal

(with a 6-month margin). Can NASA please confirm that this interpretation is correct? We recommend that the prerequisite demonstrated landing/acceptance test requirement only be required on some lower-risk-tolerant delivery/task orders, and not all delivery/task orders.

see question 1 response

48 DRFP

"3. NASA subject matter experts made available to support areas where a Contractor may have difficulty in the execution of a delivery/task order (i.e., descent and landing guidance, navigation, and control; thermal control;

propulsion, etc.)."

Can NASA please confirm that this is intended to be available upon contractor request and is not compulsory?

In the Final RFP Section C under 3.2 this was updated to "Collaboration Support: At the task/delivery order level, NASA may make available specialized expertise or personnel to support the Contractor in a collaborative role (see H.20). The specific roles, durations, and expertise will be negotiated per mission to help resolve complex technical challenges or address identified performance risks."

49 DRFP

"(c) Starting in calendar year 2028, potential new providers may only submit proposals between April 1 through April 30th each year. There is no fixed timeline for award; timelines will vary based on the volume of proposals received and are subject to resource availability."

Does this mean that the planned 2026 on-ramp opportunity will remain open until April 2028, at which time on-ramps thereafter will only occur annually in

April? Or does this mean that NASA does not intend to solicit an on-ramp opportunity in 2027, and the first/next opportunity will be in April 2028?

We recommend NASA explicitly clarify the timing and whether annual on-ramps beginning in 2028 are guaranteed. We also recommend that on-ramp proposals expire after 1 year unless contractors confirm validity for another year.

The On-Ramp clause has been revised in the Final RFP, and now states that "NASA anticipates requesting proposals each calendar year starting in 2027", with additional on‑ramp opportunities issued at NASA’s discretion.

The RFP does not establish an April‑only submission window or guarantee annual cycles.

50 DRFP

"(4) In the situation of a Failed Mission determination resulting from a loss of CLPS services, either the Government or the CLPS Contract Holder may initiate the off ramp in lieu of a second or subsequent unplanned launch of a replacement CLPS commercial mission, as required to meet the Contractor’s re-performance obligations described in FAR 52.246-4 Inspection of Services- Fixed-Price – paragraph (e)."

Our interpretation is that in the event of a failed mission, a contractor must either re-perform or exit the IDIQ contract. Can NASA confirm this interpretation is correct? How would this process work in a scenario where a contractor off-ramps to avoid their re-performance liability, but then subsequently requests to on-ramp?

We recommend that the penalty for a failed landing be a pre-determined claw-back payment amount in lieu of requiring re-performance.

The FAR 52.246-4 Inspection of Services-Fixed-Price – paragraph (e) has been deviated and the requirement for re-performance removed.

51 DRFP

"(7) In the event, the CLPS Contractor plans to provide its own coverage of a CLPS awarded commercial mission, such coverage shall require coordination with NASA Communications."

Can NASA please confirm that this communications clause only applies to information and updates strictly associated with NASA CLPS payload(s)?

The clause H.8 Communications requirement in paragraph (7) applies to any contractor‑initiated coverage of a CLPS2 awarded mission, not only to information tied strictly to NASA CLPS payloads. If the mission is awarded under the CLPS contract, contractor‑produced coverage must be coordinated with NASA Communications, consistent with the broader communications clause. This ensures accuracy and alignment for all public communications related to NASA‑funded CLPS activities.

52 DRFP

"As part of their proposal, the offer shall demonstrate their capability to build and test a lunar lander with acceptance test campaign successfully completed no later than 6 months from the submission of proposals."

Part I, Section C, 2.1 Qualification and Readiness states "Prior to performance of the CLPS SoW under any CLIN, the Contractor shall provide completed evidence of readiness to proceed with performing an initial, reliable landed mission under this contract." This statement is in direct conflict with the SoW language.

Our understanding is that evidence of readiness is required at time of delivery/task order proposal and not at time of IDIQ proposal (with a 6 month margin). Can NASA please confirm that this interpretation is correct and update the instructions and evaluation criteria accordingly? We recommend that the prerequisite demonstrated landing/acceptance test requirement only be required on some lower-risk-tolerant delivery/task orders, and not all delivery/task orders.

The evaluation criteria have been modified in the Final RFP. Technical evaluation criteria in the Final RFP will be intended to evaluate a vendor by verifying an offeror possesses the capabilities identified in section L.16.5.

53 DRFP

"The Offeror shall respond to 1a and 1b below using a lunar lander to demonstrate a qualification testing campaign completed no later than 6 months from the proposal submission date."

Part I, Section C, 2.1 Qualification and Readiness states "Prior to performance of the CLPS SoW under any CLIN, the Contractor shall provide completed evidence of readiness to proceed with performing an initial, reliable landed mission under this contract." This statement is in direct conflict with the SoW language. Our understanding is that evidence of readiness is required at time of delivery/task order proposal and not at time of IDIQ proposal (with a 6 month margin). Can NASA please confirm that this interpretation is correct?

The technical acceptability criteria have been modified in the Final RFP and Part I, Section C, 2.1 has been edited to align with the updated technical acceptability factors for evaluation.

54 DRFP

May a team satisfy the qualification requirement through the combined experience of the prime contractor, proposed subcontractors, and key personnel, rather than requiring the prime contractor alone to satisfy one of the stated qualification paths?

No. The revised Technical Acceptability criteria evaluates Technical Acceptability at the Prime Contractor level to ensure the entity held contractually accountable possesses the requisite organizational infrastructure to manage a lunar mission. While a team may leverage the experience of subcontractors and key personnel to bolster its technical approach, the Prime Contractor must demonstrate that it has the authority and capability to integrate these competencies into a singular, functioning mission architecture.

55 DRFP

Does the phrase “proposed lander” in Path B refer specifically to the vehicle the offeror proposes to deliver under CLPS 2.0, or may it refer to a heritage lander from which the proposed design derives, where the offeror’s team has first-hand experience with that heritage vehicle’s acceptance test campaign?

see question 52 response

56 DRFP

Would a Heritage Compliance Matrix demonstrating TRL 9 flight heritage for all major subsystems in relevant environments, combined with a targeted delta qualification test plan, satisfy the acceptance test campaign requirement either as a standalone path or in combination with other qualification evidence?

see question 52 response

57 DRFP

Does the qualification requirement apply to the prime contractor’s corporate experience alone, or may the offeror demonstrate compliance through the relevant prior employer experience of proposed key personnel who will perform primary technical functions under the contract?

The qualification requirement applies to the offeror’s company's specific core competencies, not to the prior individual experience of proposed personnel. Reference Final RFP section L.16.5(b). Offerors may describe the experience of key personnel as part of their overall narrative, but individual prior‑employer accomplishments cannot be used to satisfy the lander qualification requirement, which must be met by the proposing entity or its team members using actual hardware and test/flight results.

58 DRFP

"(a) The Contractor will work with NASA to execute NASA-initiated media events where NASA Office of Communications determines, after good faith consultation with the Contractor, that a media event is warranted the Contractor may, consistent with Federal law and this Contract, release general information regarding its activities conducted within the scope of the Contract.

"(1) The Contractor will coordinate with NASA Communications, or their designee, in advance of release of any media products for review and approval, including without limitation releases, advisories, contracts, web articles, media interviews, news conferences, contingency statements, media scouts, photo opportunities, and film crew activities regarding NASA efforts or activities in connection with the Contract. The coordination will be implemented in a timely manner prior to release with negotiations taking place at least five (5) business days before release."

Would NASA be open to negotiating some terms of the communications clause?

No, NASA does not intend to negotiate the H.8 Communications Clause.

59 DRFP

"c. Ensuring non-interference (electromagnetic, cleanliness, etc.) of the spacecraft with the NASA payload(s)"

Can NASA please add a statement that NASA will ensure non-interference of the launch vehicle as part of the launch acquisition process?

No. Under CLIN 1 NASA is not responsible for procuring the launch service and therefore any requirements associated with the launch service will need to be remedied between the Contractor and the launch vehicle provider.

60 DRFP

"The Contractor shall specify and provide definitions for environmental controls or passive protections available from the Contractor’s spacecraft on a specific task order. These may include, but are not limited to, pressure, thermal, aerothermal, aerodynamic, plasma charging, radiation, magnetic field, lighting, and cleanliness. Payloads will be exposed to a variety of environment conditions that may affect the payload’s ability to operate. Some of these environmental conditions are inherent to the physical location (e.g. radiation), some may be a result of the transport spacecraft (e.g. vibrations or thermal load). Each Contractor shall offer specific mitigations in their spacecraft design to environmental conditions. The Contractor shall demonstrate compliance with the payload’s environmental requirements during the execution of the task order."

Is the intent for contractors to provide "user's guide" types of information for "standard" lander environments? If so, will NASA provide payload-specific information with the RFTOP, and will contractors have an opportunity to request specific payload data in order to develop these requested definitions?

Or does NASA envision using this provision to leave the door open for specific strength (i.e., mitigations for as-yet undefined environmental requirements) opportunities within offeror's proposals?

No, the intent is not for Contractors to provide "user's guide" types of information for "standard" lander environments. The referenced section in the Statement of Work (SOW) serves as a broad, foundational framework for the IDIQ contract, outlining the Contractor’s overall responsibilities in the end-to-end delivery services. Detailed, mission-specific requirements flowing from specific payload information will be handled at the task order level. In responding to the SOW, NASA expects information on what a contractor is capable of doing rather than how those capabilities would be applied to meet a specific lunar delivery requirement.

61 DRFP

"The Contractor shall specify and provide definitions for which payload resources are available from Contractor’s systems on a specific mission.

Typical payload resources may include, but are not limited to, structural attachment, geometrical volume, mass accommodation, center-of-gravity constraints, electrical power/characteristics, thermal control, telemetry, commanding, physical access, and operational constraints of these."

Is the intent for contractors to provide "user's guide" types of information for "standard" capabilities/accommodations (e.g., is payload conditioning offered, is wi-fi vs. ethernet provided, does the lander provide power/data/etc. to payloads post-deployment, etc.)? Does NASA envision using this provision to leave the door open for specific strength (i.e., capabilities beyond the defined contractual requirements) opportunities within offeror's proposals?

No, the intent is not for Contractors to provide "user's guide" types of information for "standard" capabilities/accommodations (e.g., is payload conditioning offered, is wi-fi vs. ethernet provided, does the lander provide power/data/etc. to payloads post-deployment, etc.). The referenced section in the Statement of Work (SOW) serves as a broad, foundational framework for the IDIQ contract, outlining the contractor’s overall responsibilities in the end-to-end delivery services. Detailed, mission-specific requirements flowing from specific payload information will be handled at the task order level. In responding to the SOW, NASA expects information on what a contractor is capable of doing rather than how those capabilities would be applied to meet a specific lunar delivery requirement.

62 DRFP

Is: "5. Mobility systems such as rovers and hoppers"

Does NASA envision prime on-ramp proposals that include mobility systems if offered (i.e., the prime on-ramps with the lander + rover)? Or does only the lander on-ramp to the IDIQ, and then if a subsequent task order includes a payload that requires mobility, the prime can bid a rover alongside their lander solution? We recommend that NASA clarify how they intend for this on-ramping to work in practice.

The CLPS 2.0 contract (and subsequent onramps) solicits vendors that can credibly meet NASA's expected requirements for delivery of payloads to the Moon and other locations. Vendors will be required to propose end to end solutions. Providers that can provide parts of the delivery architecture should consider subcontract opportunities with the prime vendors to participate. NASA will evaluate any end to end delivery architecture that meets its requirements.

63 DRFP

"This contract is for payload delivery services to Lunar destinations including the Lunar surface, Lunar orbit, Lunar Lagrangian points, and other destinations as defined by NASA."

Does NASA envision specific launch vehicles on-ramping alongside specific landers, or is the provider’s full suite of capabilities intended to be available to bid on CLPS 2.0 task orders? If the latter, how does NASA envision using CLPS 2.0 vs. LSP for in-space/orbital payload destinations?

We recommend that NASA avoid duplicate contracting mechanisms for similar services.

see question 4 response

64 DRFP

For TA1(a), may an offeror rely on a previously flown, softly landed lunar lander as its primary qualification evidence even if the exact future CLPS configuration continues to evolve, or must the exact proposed future configuration also complete the acceptance test campaign within six months of proposal submission? This is particularly important to clarify as CLPS contractors evolve capabilities to support future Moon Base Phase’s 2 and 3 increased lander sizes and payload mass requirements.

The technical acceptability criteria have been modified and the new criteria offer 3 pathways. Pathway 2 asks for acceptance testing of any fully assembled lunar lander. Landers proposed at the task/delivery order level will be evaluated based on the specific criteria of that order.

65 DRFP

Does the language permitting a testing campaign “reflective of a future campaign or reflective of events that have already occurred” allow an offeror to combine actual flight heritage with completed and remaining acceptance testing on an evolved derivative of that lander?

The technical acceptability criteria have been modified and the new criteria offer 3 pathways defined in Final RFP section L.16.5.

66 DRFP

For TA1(b), what level of evidence is NASA expecting for anomaly closure and mitigation effectiveness: root-cause narrative only, implemented design/process corrective action, verification test evidence, or demonstrated flight closure on subsequent missions?

The technical acceptability criteria have been modified, and the new criteria offer 3 pathways defined in Final RFP section L.16.5. Regarding anomalies, it is recommended to provide a description of past anomalies and focus on descriptions of what happened, explanations of root-causes, any corrective action/mitigations that were employed, etc.

67 DRFP

For CLIN 2, please identify the minimum Government Purpose Rights data package NASA expects at the delivery-order level. Specifically, does NASA expect GPR in the Integration Users Guide, interface control documents, environmental and analytical models, mission operations procedures, software object code, software source code, manufacturing process data, and/or GSE documentation?

The CLIN 2 Government Purpose Rights apply to any data NASA would need to integrate payloads onto the spacecraft, integrate the spacecraft onto a launch vehicle, and then operate the spacecraft in space.

68 DRFP

Please explain how offerors should reconcile the CLIN 2 Government Purpose Rights requirement with H.13/H.14 restrictive-marking procedures and H.17 Rights in Data—Special Works. What specific categories of data may remain limited/restricted, and what categories must be delivered with GPR or unlimited rights?

The Final RFP Clause H.17 Applicability of Rights in Data - Special Works has been updated to provide clarity with regard to applicability to CLINs 1, 2, and 3. Also, reference Final RFP clauses I.8 applicable to CLIN 1 and I.9 applicable to CLINs 2 and 3.

69 DRFP

Attachment J-6 states the Government will not release limited-rights data to a contractor without written permission from the CLPS task-order awardee, while H.19 appears to give NASA and support contractors broad access to contractor data and activities. Which provision controls for anomaly reports, mission-failure reports, corrective-action records, and related technical data?

Attachment J-6 Anomaly, Mishap, Mission Failure Preparedness and Contingency Reporting data requirements description governs the limited rights related to anomaly reports.

70 DRFP

The cover letter references “up to 8,000 hours of NASA expertise per DO/TO,” but H.20 leaves the collaboration-hours field blank and Attachments

J-3/J-4 remain largely TBD. Is 8,000 hours a ceiling, a planning value, a default, or merely illustrative? How will those hours be allocated, requested, tracked, and approved at the order level?

The number of collaboration hours will be specified at the task order level.

71 DRFP

For Government Task Agreements, please confirm exactly how offerors are to scope and propose GTA usage when Attachment J-3 is TBD, and how GTA cost will be treated in evaluation if the offeror is instructed not to include GTA cost in proposed prices or NTEs but NASA will add the GTA cost to Total

Evaluated Price.

Attachment J-3 has been updated to provide the Government Task Agreement (GTA) Instructions and Form. How the GTAs will be treated in task order evaluations will be identified in each RFTP.

72 DRFP

Please distinguish which H.19/H.20 insight, resident-office, database-access, and supplier-data-access requirements are contract-wide obligations versus task-order- specific obligations, and confirm whether those rights extend to non-NASA missions using similar hardware.

NASA's enhanced insight and collaboration of CLPS missions will be tiered based on mission criticality and risk.

The specific implementation of Insight and Approval will be defined at the task order level.

73 DRFP

Please confirm whether H.16 domestic-source compliance is assessed at the contract level, CLIN level, delivery-order level, mission level, or for each individual vehicle element.

The Final RFP section L.16.4 requires submission of the J-8 Domestic Sourcing self certification. Additionally, clause H.16 Domestic Source Requirements will also be assessed at the task order level.

74 DRFP

Please clarify how NASA will calculate the 65/75 percent thresholds for launch services procured from third parties, foreign-origin subcomponents incorporated into U.S.-manufactured systems, and mixed-source propulsion or avionics content.

Reference the updated H.16 Domestic Source Requirements in the Final RFP.

75 DRFP

Please confirm whether the domestic end-product test applies independently to the launch vehicle, transfer stage, and lunar lander, or whether NASA evaluates the integrated mission architecture as a whole.

Domestic end product test is applied to "each space transportation vehicle utilized by the Contractor to provide services in the performance of this contract."

76 DRFP

Attachment J-6 defines mission failure partly as preventing the contractor from providing power and communications to at least two NASA payloads. How will NASA apply that definition to missions carrying only one NASA payload?

Does this same criteria apply regardless of the number and complexity of payloads?

For missions carrying fewer than two NASA payloads, NASA will provide additional information at the task order level to clarify the applicable J-6 requirements to that manifest. NASA will apply the definition in a way that preserves its intent: any inability to meet required power and communications for the NASA payload(s) manifested, even if that is only one payload, constitutes a mission failure reportable under J-6. The “two-payload” phrasing does not exempt missions with only one NASA payload from mission-failure reporting.

The same mission-failure criteria apply regardless of the number or complexity of payloads; the reporting requirement is tied to the mission’s ability to meet required landing and payload-support obligations as defined in the applicable task order.

77 DRFP

Please explain how H.7 of-ramp interacts with FAR 52.246-4 reperformance rights and I.4(e) contract cancellation, and whether NASA intends of-ramp to replace reperformance only in limited cases or as a general alternative remedy.

The Final RFP updated clause E.3 FAR 52.246-4 Inspection of Services-Fixed-Price – paragraph (e) has been deviated and the requirement for re-performance removed. The H.7 Off Ramp clause has been revised to identify when Contractor's may be off-ramped from the contract.

78 DRFP

Please confirm whether classified-payload capability, facility clearance posture, and DD Form 254 readiness are required at the base-contract proposal stage or only when a delivery/task order includes classified content.

The requirements in clause I.16 1852.240-75 SECURITY CLASSIFICATION REQUIREMENTS were updated in the Final RFP to be required as applicable at the task order level.

79 DRFP

Please confirm whether RHU/RTG or other nuclear-payload support is contemplated only under CLIN 1 “Other Mission Services,” or whether CLIN 2 may also include lander delivery supporting nuclear payload integration and operations.

There is no restriction on use of nuclear payloads, it may apply to all CLINs 1, 2, and 3.

80 DRFP

Please reconcile I.3, F.4, and I.4(d). I.3 sets ordering through September 30, 2036; F.4 states the option will modify ordering through September 30, 2041;

and I.4(d) states the contractor shall not be required to make deliveries after five years from the last date of the contract ordering period. What is the intended final ordering period and last possible delivery date in the final RFP?

The base final ordering period ends September 30, 2036, as identified in I.3 and L.14. If NASA exercises the option then the ordering period will be extended through September 30, 2041. Additionally, per clause I.5 52.216-22

INDEFINITE QUANTITY (NOV 2025) (DEVIATION) Alternate I (DEVIATION) Contractors will have five years to perform and complete their orders from the last date of the contract ordering period (e.g., base ordering period ends September 30, 2036 and all orders are required to be complete by September 30, 2041. Or if the option is exercised, the ordering period ends September 30, 2041 and all orders are required to be complete by September

30, 2046.

81 DRFP

Please confirm whether all CLPS 2.0 IDIQ awardees will be invited to compete for Attachment L-1 Task Order 1 at or immediately after IDIQ award, whether NASA anticipates one or multiple TO awards, and whether Task Order 1 proposals will be required as part of the initial IDIQ proposal submission.

No, all CLPS2 awardees will not have to compete for the L-1 Task Order 1. Task Order 1 will be issued unilaterally to awardees upon award of a CLPS2 contract.

82 DRFP

The responsibilities between the Contractor and NASA will change depending on whether a project is done under CLIN 1 or CLIN 2. We believe the language in Clause H.9 may need to be modified to reflect these different responsibilities. For example, under CLIN 2, if NASA and not Contractor is responsible for launch, communications and/or operations, shouldn’t NASA be responsible for licenses and permits for the applicable activities not being performed by Contractor? Similarly, there are Contractor responsibilities in

H.15 that should not be applicable under CLIN 2.

If there are any deviations or inapplicability of clause H.9 LICENSES, PERMITS AND INSURANCE and H.15 OUTER SPACE TREATY COMPLIANCE this will be identified at the task/delivery order level.

CLPS2 DRFP Q&A 5.28.26