CLPS2 Final RFP and Pre-Proposal Conference Q-A Release 6.18.26.pdf

CLPS2 Draft RFP Q&A Release June 18, 2026

Ref No.

Document Title:

Question: Response

147 Pre- Proposal Conference

Regarding Pathway 3, are offerors limited to 2 mission examples or can they exceed 2 missions to show that they are credible lunar mission providers

No, the Offeror can use as many mission examples as they feel necessary to demonstrate an Acceptable rating in the Technical Acceptability Factor.

148 Pre- Proposal Conference

Must all space vehicles (including lander) used by a rover prime meet the US Commercial Provider statute

Yes, reference RFP clause H.15 "..each space transportation vehicle utilized by the Contractor to provide services in the performance of this contract, including but not limited to launch vehicles, landers, and rovers, shall be a domestic end product."

149 Pre- Proposal Conference are anomalies with landing sensors during landing that prevented soft landing considered catastrophic failure of avionics for pathway 3

No, landing sensor anomalies are not considered catastrophic failures in avionics for the purposes of the Pathway 3 technical evaluation.

150 Pre- Proposal Conference

Will NASA respond to all questions in writing even if they were submitted before this conference

Yes, NASA responded to all questions received before the conference in writing on June 12, 2026, on Sam.gov and CLPS2 procurement website.

151 Pre- Proposal Conference

Is your team still considering any submitted amendments Yes, an Amendment 2 will be issued shortly..

152 Pre- Proposal Conference

Some draft RFP questions submitted were not responded to - can NASA explain why

See the answer to question #150. Resubmit question if your question was not answered.

153 Pre- Proposal Conference

Does NASA intend on using CLPS for only landers or will orbiters be on future task orders

The CLPS2 statement of work includes destinations other than the lunar surface. NASA’s requirement for orbital delivery or even Mars landing, if determined, will be captured in future Task Orders.

154 Pre- Proposal Conference

One hallmark of CLPS 1.0 task orders were acceptable long lead times that required missions to be in the ~45-48 months out from task order award. Will CLPS2 continue to see accelerated procurement timelines similar to CS-8

Yes, task orders issued under the CLPS2 master contract will continue to seek to improve on reliability and cost to the government. Reducing overall schedule is a factor in total cost and NASA will continue to maximize both objectives.

155 Pre- Proposal Conference

Do you recommend a certain pathway for delivering a nuclear payload to the lunar surface

No, NASA does not recommend any specific regulatory pathway.

156 Pre- Proposal Conference

For Pathway 1, a Contractor has to have been "the primary architect and operator of the delivery service." And the delivery service must be end-to-end. Since no rover provider to date has been the prime who subcontracted the lander and LV, how could a rover provider qualify

The Offeror needs to demonstrate that they have met all the criteria described in Pathway 1 to qualify under that pathway. If they do not, then they will not be deemed acceptable under that Pathway. The same criteria are planned to be used for future on-ramping reviews.

157 Pre- Proposal Conference

Is Small Business Subcontracting Plan a scored item or just a "check the box" item For example, are there certain small business goal target % thresholds to hit, or minimum requirements If so do these % include launch vehicle or not Or is the requirement just to submit a plan

No, however, offerors are required to propose reasonable, well-supported small business goals as all Small Business Subcontracting Plans must be reviewed and approved by the Small Business Office.

158 Pre- Proposal Conference

What restrictions, if any, are placed on the lander proposed by an IDIQ on-ramped team for a give task order Are task orders expected to require prior performance of the proposed lander or key subsystems

Future task orders under the CLPS2 master contract may require prior performance of landing systems, depending on the risk tier of the payload(s).

159 Pre- Proposal Conference

Pathway 3 Do we just need to describe our previous designs or are we still supposed to show a Lander design

Pathway 3 does not specifically require a lander design unless the lander was a spacecraft flown in space to demonstrate the duration or thrust requirements.

160 Pre- Proposal Conference

From Q&A and Pathway 3 - It looks like companies who have no intension to build Landers will qualify and can get on CLPS 2 whereas new space companies who have made real progress and investments in maturing Lander designs but haven't yet build one do not qualify. Can you clarify

In CLPS2 there is an emphasis on companies with higher maturity levels than were required for CLPS 1.0.

161 Pre- Proposal Conference

Based on the expanded data rights requirement, will NDAs executed to ensure safe keeping of such data.

No, NASA will not execute NDAs in the performance of the CLPS2 contract.

162 Pre- Proposal Conference

Can NASA explain if insight data will be governed by the data rights clauses or if it should be marked as proprietary, which is how it is treated under other NASA contracts, and why

Insight data is governed by the data rights clauses and the specific data rights will be specified at the task order level.

163 Pre- Proposal Conference

Can NASA explain why it is seeking only unlimited rights or limited rights assertions under CLIN 1 versus any GPR assertions, which is more applicable to payload integration where documents are often developed with mixed funding

Government purpose rights are not appropriate for CLIN 1 tasks where government wide sharing is only necessary for unlimited rights data. Payload integration documents typically contain information about vendor spacecraft that are not produced under the CLPS task order and are therefore inappropriate to mark as GPR.

164 Pre- Proposal Conference

To clarify -- can a rover that previously delivered payloads to the Moon on someone else's lander qualify as a Path 1 prime

The Offeror needs to demonstrate that they have met all the criteria described in Pathway 1 to qualify under that pathway.

165 Pre- Proposal Conference

How can a rover provider qualify under Pathway 1 if they haven't achieved "the successfully end-to-end delivery and operation of a payload at its required destination on the lunar surface" per the RFTP Emphasis on end-to-end.

The Offeror needs to demonstrate that they have met all the criteria described in Pathway 1 to qualify under that pathway. If they do not, then they will not be deemed acceptable under that Pathway.

166 Pre- Proposal Conference

You stated data rights will be specified at the TO level, but the IDIQ RFP contains specifications for what items can be asserted as limited rights under clause H.17. Will NASA consider removing this stipulations as it is more restrictive than it should be.

The RFP amendment 1 revised the stipulations in H.17

APPLICABILITY OF RIGHTS IN DATA – SPECIAL

WORKS and specifically in Table H-1.

167 Pre- Proposal Conference

Will there be coordination with other NASA programs (i.e.

NextSTEP) for which CLIN 3 tasks will be requested at CLPS

2.0 task order level vs. those programs

NASA will coordinate internally as appropriate.

168 Pre- Proposal Conference

Based on the expanded limited rights language in the contract , How can the contractor ensure the limited rights data delivered under this contract won't be used improperly by competitors

The contractor should ensure limited rights data delivered under the contract have been identified to the Government, including conspicuously marking such data. The Gov’t may disclose such data outside the Government only when made subject to use and disclosure restrictions as set forth in the LRD Notice.

In all circumstances, use of limited rights data for manufacture is not permitted, so use by support services contractors or others having an agreement, transaction , or other arrangement with the Government are subject to the same use restrictions as the Government.

169 Pre-

Conference how do you anticipate future year on-ramps working will you issue a solicitation, or should companies proactively submit proposals

The onramp clause H6(c) specifies that proposals should only be submitted "when requested".

170 Pre-

Conference

For Pathway 3, can the thrust requirement be met cumulatively across different missions

No, the thrust requirement cannot be met cumulatively.

Reference RFP section L.16.5(b)(3)that a "high thrust spacecraft is defined as having at least one engine capable of producing a force greater than 90 lbf".

171 Pre- Proposal Conference

If proposing for Pathway 3, is the CLPS office interested in seeing proposed 2.0 lander design and capabilities Will that factor into proposal evaluation

See answer to question #159

172 Pre- Proposal Conference

Is there a need for water in space A need for water in space is not a requirement in the

CLPS2 RFP.

173 Pre- Proposal Conference

What is the best way for lunar rover providers to participate in CLPS 2.0 Is there a plan to support mobility-as-a-service as suggested in the CLPS 2.0 RFI

Lunar rover providers may participate in different ways. One way is through mobility as a service in future CLPS2 task orders where a rover provider could be subcontracted by a CLPS2 vendor. . A second way is through a separate NASA contract where a rover is developedand may become a payload for a CLPS2 task order delivery. Finally, if the lunar rover is robust enough, then a lunar rover provider may propose to qualify as a CLPS2 vendor through pathway 1.

174 Pre- Proposal Conference

For Pathway 3, can the thrust requirement be met via a ground-test campaign of a high-thrust engine designed for a lunar lander

No, Pathway 3 specifically calls out the need to demonstrate a "flight-proven technical baseline" and calls out the requirement of operating in space.

175 Pre- Proposal Conference

Pathway 3 - Can it be qualified by doing a spacecraft for 24 hours in space with low thrust engine + the thrust requirement met by our successful Launch Vehicle

There is not enough information provided in the question to evaluate it. The Offeror needs to demonstrate that they have met all the criteria described in Pathway 3 to qualify under that pathway.

As stated in L.16.5(b), Technical Proposal Instructions, “Proposals that fail to adequately address the specific technical criteria for the Technical Acceptability Factor for its chosen pathway will be rated as Unacceptable and ineligible for award.” Pathway 3 allows for the thrust and duration requirements to be met across separate missions.

176 Pre- Proposal Conference

Will the CLPS office consider strengthening the language around future on-ramps starting in 2027 Right now it just says, "at NASA's discretion" without any firm commitments.

No, the language will not be updated. The wording states that "NASA anticipates requesting proposals each calendar year starting in 2027".

177 Pre-

Conference

The stated goal of pathway 3 appears to be onboarding credible providers. Would a company be considered technically compliant and credible if it has completed ground testing and is already manifested to fly an engine >90lbf within the next six months

The Offeror needs to demonstrate that they have met all the criteria described in Pathway 3 to qualify under that pathway. As stated in L.16.5(b), Technical Proposal Instructions, “Proposals that fail to adequately address the specific technical criteria for the Technical Acceptability Factor for its chosen pathway will be rated as Unacceptable and ineligible for award.”

Pathway 3 specifically calls out the need to demonstrate a "flight-proven technical baseline" and calls out the requirement of having operated in space.

178 Pre- Proposal Conference

Is the CLPS 2.0 contract expected to encompass the previously announced CMPS program for Commercial Mars Payload Services Or is that expected to have a separate onramp

The CLPS2 RFP does not preclude any other program.

179 Pre- Proposal Conference

Can you confirm that vehicle-level on-boarding or multi-vehicle on-boarding is not needed here The prime contractor company qualifies once. What vehicles (landers, rovers, orbiters, etc.) are proposed for specific task orders as a task order evaluation item.

Yes, specific vehicle designs to accomplish future task orders will be evaluated with each task order. The CLPS2 evaluation process will not certify or "on-board" any particular vehicle. The CLPS2 RFP seeks to evaluate the Offeror's core competencies in propulsion, avionics, and integration via Pathways 1, 2, or 3 and will select Offerors based on that to participate in the CLPS2 contract pool.

180 Pre- Proposal Conference

For technical acceptability pathway 2, can in-space operational performance results be used as verification that the vehicle’s electronics and communication suites operate without interference

The RFP states that the "Offeror must demonstrate that the lunar lander has undergone an acceptance test campaign that includes the following:...EMI/EMC Testing: Verification that the vehicle’s electronics and communication suites operate without interference." It is up to the Offeror to determine the best way of meeting this criterion.

181 Pre- Proposal Conference

Say a rover from company A was delivered by company B.

Rover transmitted from surface. Can the Rover company qualify under Pathway-1 if they show they can scale rover capability to 100 kg payload Do they need some letter of support from lander company

The Offeror needs to demonstrate that they have met all the criteria described in Pathway 1 to qualify under that pathway. If they do not, then they will not be deemed acceptable under that Pathway.

182 Pre- Proposal Conference

For mobility-as-a-service task orders, will NASA or the CLPS

2.0 prime select the lunar rover provider

Future mobility needs will be specified at the task order level.

183 Pre-

Conference

Page 5 of the RFP states, "NASA will sponsor SCI clearances" --this is contradictory to what was just stated. Can you clarify

Yes, NASA will sponsor SCI clearances as needed.

184 Pre- Proposal Conference

Can you clarify that everyone still has to apply for CLPS2 with a Lander or can we apply with our heritage spacecraft bus that has proven >90 lbs thrust or with our OTV

Offerors can bid as a prime if capable of satisfying the criteria posed in Pathways 1, 2, or 3. Specific vehicle designs and architectures to accomplish future task orders will be evaluated with each task order

185 Pre- Proposal Conference

Can you clarify if non-Lander providers can bid as a prime contractor if we meet all other requirements. Does the response to CLPS2 have to include a Lander or just a plan to convert our bus to a lander works

Yes, non-lander offerors can bid as a prime if capable of satisfying the criteria posed in Pathways 1, 2, or 3.

Specific vehicle designs and architectures to accomplish future task orders will be evaluated with each task order.

186 Pre- Proposal Conference

The SOW currently does not fully define roles and responsibilities within the payload integration process, particularly with respect to data exchange and verification. Will this scope be better defined at the TO level

Yes, payload integration requirements, roles, and responsibilities will be defined better at the task order level.

187 Pre- Proposal Conference

Will TSSCI clearances be sponsored through CLPSNASA Yes, NASA will sponsor TS/SCI clearances, if required by the task order.

188 Pre- Proposal Conference

What is the reasoning behind establishing 90lbf as the thrust requirement level

The 90 lbf thrust level was established based on extensive internal discussions and market research.

189 Pre- Proposal Conference

To be clear, does NASA plan on requiring ICDs for payload integration? If so, this will be developed using mixed funding.

Does NASA not believe this ICD should be delivered as GPR

ICDs under CLIN 1 should not be delivered with Government Purpose Rights. ICDs are developed as part of the task order and are shared by the Contractor with NASA and the payload teams under limited rights.

190 Pre- Proposal Conference

Can you clarify if CLPS 2 may include Mars landing See answer to question #153

191 Pre- Proposal Conference

Slide 12 Will Task Orders be evaluated against an expected price range. And will that be provided beforehand to on-ramped IDIQ participants, or provided publicly

It is anticipated that future task orders will use price analysis for evaluation. Future task orders under CLPS2 master contract may include a government cost estimate.

192 Pre-

Conference

Can you clarify on how a rover provider can get in through pathway 1

The Offeror needs to demonstrate that they have met all the criteria described in Pathway 1 to qualify under that pathway. If they do not, then they will not be deemed acceptable. Pathway 1 is intended to be architecture agnostic, recognizing that there might be many different ways to deliver payloads to specified locations on the Moon. Rovers may be one way to accomplish that service.

193 Pre- Proposal Conference

A rover is not a lander. A rover cannot ALONE do "end-to-end" delivery as required by Pathway 1.

There is no requirement in CLPS2 that an Offeror own and operate all aspects of the transportation architecture. This is clarified in Pathway 1 in the Final RFP Amendment 1 L16.5(b)(1). The 'end-to-end' delivery refers to the Offeror's responsibility as the Prime Contractor to operate or subcontract for all elements of the transportation architecture.

194 Final RFP Does the government plan to evaluate proposals using AI? If so, can you specify what systems?

No, the government does not plan to use AI to evaluate proposals.

195 Final RFP The solicitation indicates there will be an overlap between CLPS

1.0 and CLPS2.0 ordering periods.

- Once CLPS2.0 awards are made and the CLPS2 pool is established, does NASA anticipate that new landing task orders will be placed primarily on CLPS2, or will new landing task orders continue to be issued under CLPS throughout the overlap period?

Once CLPS2 awards are made and the new provider pool is established, NASA expects some overlap with task orders already in progress. New task orders that begin formulation after the CLPS2 pool is established are anticipated to be issued under CLPS2. Existing CLPS task orders will continue through completion, but NASA does not anticipate initiating new task orders under CLPS during the overlap period.

196 Final RFP The solicitation requests identification of key subcontractors/team members in the IDIQ proposal.

- Is the set of subcontractors identified in the basic IDIQ proposal binding for all future task orders, or may offerors propose different subcontractor teams on a task-order-by-task-order basis, tailored to each task order’s specific requirements, provided all applicable subcontracting and approval requirements?

No, the list of subcontractors is not binding for future task orders. Offerors may propose different subcontractor teams on a task-order-by-task-order basis. However, future orders will require the offeror to propose a list of subcontractors for critical components and these will be binding.

197 Final RFP Please confirm that this section of the solicitation is merely defining Howerverthe terms and that there's no expectation for the teaming agreement or joint venture agreement to be included with the proposal response.

Reference Section L.16.6(c) for requirements related to Teaming Arrangements and joint ventures.

198 Final RFP Please clarify what's meant by the reference to signing "each copy" if only one model contract and one SF 1449 is being submitted.

The reference to “Each copy” was removed, only one electronic copy of the Model Contract and SF 1449 is required.

199 Final RFP As Offeror, we plan to submit the Domestic Self Certification form with box (B) checked, which requires the Secretary of Transportation's finding of the company's substantial commitment and reciprocal treatment of business opportunities.

Would NASA allow the Offeror to obtain this finding upon contract award instead, given the current short time frame?

No, Domestic Source Self Certification is required to be complete with proposal submission. Reference Section L.16.4. Additionally, 51 USC 50101(7)(B) requires a finding from the Secretary of Transportation.

If an offeror is relying on 51 USC 50101(7)(B) to qualify as a US Commercial Provider, the offeror needs to have that completed prior to its proposal submission.

Offerors should contact the US Department of Transportation at https://www.transportation.gov/.

200 Final RFP Subsystem flight heritage as a risk-reduction factor: Referencing the mission risk and technical evaluation provisions of RFP 80JSC026R0015: for task order proposals, will NASA's mission risk evaluation give favorable consideration to lander designs that incorporate propulsion or propellant-storage subsystems with demonstrated lunar-mission flight heritage (e.g., cryogenic propellant tanks previously flown on CLPS missions) as a risk-reduction factor? Specifically, may an Offeror cite prior lunar flight demonstration of a key subsystem as evidence of maturity in lieu of additional qualification testing?

For future task orders solicited under the CLPS2 master contract, the evaluation criteria have yet to be defined and will be dependent on the requirements of the selected NASA payload suite.

201 Final RFP For task orders specifying extended lunar-surface or transit durations, will NASA value demonstrated long-duration / low-boil-off cryogenic propellant storage at the subsystem level within the technical and risk evaluation?

See answer to question #200.

202 Final RFP With respect to Attachment J-9 CLPS 2.0 Authorized Limited Rights and Restricted Rights Data, the RFP states in the Tables on page 47 and 48 the data rights assertions are “To be provided in J-9 at the Task Order Level.” The Pre-Proposal Conference briefing included a chart that listed J-9 as one of the DRDS “that are due with the proposal” and we understand J-9 will be an attachment to the contract at award. The questions: if the data rights assertions are done on a TO-by-TO basis, what is required to be submitted with the initial proposal for the IDIQ? Can we just state that we intend to make data rights assertions in response to RFTOPs later or leave the DRD blank (assuming we will submit J-9 with each TO based on the scope of the TO) or do we need to actually include what we anticipate data rights assertions could be based on the general IDIQ SOW which could conflict with the language on page 47 and 48 that mentions TO-level?

Attachment J-9 may be submitted as part of the model contract but is not required according to H.14 in the RFP. J-9 will also be submitted as part of each task order proposal and specific data assertions can be made at that time. Any data rights assertions made in the J-9 attachment to the model contract are not binding for future task orders.

203 Final RFP Regarding Section M.3 (a), “Offerors with an approved Commercial Small Business Plan (reference clause I.6, 52.219 9)…”, could you please confirm that it is acceptable for an offeror to submit a Commercial Small Business Plan with this proposal and get the Commercial Small Business Plan approved with this contract or does the requirement mean offerors can only use Commercial Small Business Plans that have been previously approved under a different contract than CLPS2?

Offerors may submit a new Commercial Small Business Subcontracting Plan with their proposal.

Section M.3(a) does not require the plan to have been previously approved under another contract. Any Commercial Small Business Subcontracting Plan submitted with the proposal will be reviewed and approved by NASA in connection with the award.

204 Final RFP What is the name of Volume II? "Responsibility Considerations

– Offeror Volume II" or "Offer Volume (Domestic Sourcing, Responsibility, etc.)"

The correct title is “Responsibility Considerations - Volume II.”

205 Final RFP In order to illustrate improvements to components, systems, spacecraft, processes etc. which meet criteria for Pathways 1-3, would the discussion of components, systems, etc. on new spacecraft or spacecraft in development lower the evaluation rating by default? In other words, should we exclusively discuss spacecraft which meet the criteria or is it ok to detail lessons learned/improvements from previous spacecraft which are being implemented on newly designed spacecraft or spacecraft currently in development?

Each proposal must include a detailed technical justification demonstrating its company’s specific core competencies in propulsion, avionics, and integration.

Each pathway utilizes distinct methods for establishing these competencies. Proposals that fail to adequately address the specific technical criteria for the Technical Acceptability Factor for its chosen pathway will be rated as Unacceptable and ineligible for award.

Discussions of lessons learned and improvements in propulsion, avionics, or integration using new spacecraft that have not been flown or tested could supplement the demonstration of the company's fulfillment of the technical criteria but would not be sufficient to satisfy criteria on their own.

206 Final RFP The EFSS Box link provided in the Final RFP, https://nasagov.box.com/s/o6skvlp0b37cnhbiucpjdlrx20l5owx1, links to the Box filepath: Files > All CLPS Vendors > CLPS 2.0.

This folder is not under the vendor-specific "restricted" box folders, and has > 60 people who can access it across all vendors in the CLPS 1.0 vendor pool. Could NASA edit this to instead provide a secure link with viewing that is restricted to only NASA and the submitting vendor?

Yes. NASA has restricted the Box folder link to only NASA and the submitting vendor.

207 Final RFP To our knowledge, no lunar rover Contractor in the past 25 years has served as the "primary architect and operator" of the "end-to-end" delivery and operation of a payload to the lunar surface, as requried by Pathway 1 verbiage in the RFP. This would require the rover Contractor to have been the prime contractor who subcontracted and managed both the launch vehicle and lander delivery elements as subcontracts. Specifically, per the RFTP, "This requires that the Contractor was responsible for the manifesting, integrating, transportation architecture, thermal protection, power provision, and data relay of the payload(s)."

On the last requriement alone, no lunar rover Contractor in the past 25 years has relayed payload data from the lunar surface directly to Earth without requiring a lander prime contractor to be responsible for the data relay through the lander. Similar arguments can be made for the other requirements in that list, especially in combination with the "end-to-end" requirement of Pathway 1. Can CLPS verify this reading of the as-written Pathway 1 requirements verbiage in the current RFP?

No, NASA cannot verify any interpretation beyond what is stated in the RFP. Pathway 1 does not have to be fulfilled by a rover, and it is anticipated that these same criteria will be used for all future on-ramp evaluations.

208 Final RFP Are the cover page and table of contents included in the Volume I page count as the formatting requirements in L.16.2(a)(3) seem to indicate?

The Table of Contents (TOC) for Volume I does not count toward the page limits stated above. The TOC is for reference only and will not be evaluated. Offerors must not include any evaluative content within the TOC section. This language was updated in Amendment 2 L16.2(a)(5).

209 Final RFP If the cover page and table of contents are not part of the page count, the formatting requirements in L.16.2(b)(1) seem to indicate those pages should use Arabic numerals for page numbering. Would the government reconsider allowing a different numbering type for these pages, so the sequential Arabic page numbering accurately reflects the Volume I page count as it climbs towards the Volume I page limit?

No. All pages within each volume, including the cover page and table of contents, must use Arabic numerals as required by Section L.16.2(b)(1). These pages do not count toward page limits, but they must still follow the required formatting standards. The Government does not intend to revise this requirement.

210 Final RFP Should the model contract be submitted in MS Word or Adobe

PDF?

The Final RFP includes the Model Contract as a .docx (MS Word) attachment alongside the SF 1449 in PDF format 1. Offerors should submit the Model Contract in the same MS Word (.docx) format provided in the solicitation. All required signatures are provided on the SF 1449 in PDF, which should be completed and signed as part of the proposal submission.

211 Final RFP The SF 1449 is in Adobe PDF and is to be submitted with the model contract. If the model contract is to be submitted in MS Word, is an exception given for submission of the Adobe PDF SF 1449 or will the government release an MS Word version of the SF 1449?

The Model Contract must be submitted in the MS Word (.docx) format provided in the solicitation. The Model Contract itself does not require signatures. All required signatures are provided on the SF 1449 in PDF, which should be completed and signed as part of the proposal submission.

212 Final RFP Should a proposal responding to Pathway 2 include a separate section to describe and detail "core competencies in the propulsion, avionics, and integration of a lander to prove it is ready for immediate deployment." or does the government consider those core competencies to be demonstrated via summary of all testing results, anomalies encountered in testing and their resolution, and detailed description of lunar lander design, mission design, propulsion system architecture, avionics, software, GNC, power distribution systems, and structural frame?

Each submission must include a detailed technical justification demonstrating its company’s specific core competencies in propulsion, avionics, and integration.

Each pathway utilizes distinct methods for establishing these competencies. For Pathway 2, the Contractor must demonstrate that its company possesses the core competencies in the propulsion, avionics, and integration of a lander such that it can successfully complete the rigorous testing necessary to prove it is ready for immediate deployment. Proposals should address all of the technical criteria listed in the pathway chosen.

213 Final RFP Will TS/SCI eligibility be required upon hire or can they start with secret eligibility with the ability to get TS/SCI eligibility?

No, TS/SCI Eligibility is not required for a CLPS2 IDIQ award, but may be required prior to task order award. NASA will provide advance notice of any task order that will require TS/SCI and will sponsor TS/SCI clearances.

214 Final RFP I see the opportunity states that the “Contractor to deliver DD Form 254 as requested at the delivery/task order level (End of Attachment)”. I am assuming the main contract may not have the DD 254 and it will be flowed down to the task orders that require it, is this correct? Do you have a draft DD 254 for the task orders and can we get a copy of this please?

Yes. The base CLPS2 contract is not expected to include a DD 254. A DD 254 will be issued only at the task order level and only for those task orders that require access to classified information. Because DD 254s are tailored to the specific classified requirements of each task order, there is no draft or generic DD 254 included in the solicitation package.

215 Final RFP Are the Pathways 1-3 eligibility criteria the same for/applicable to each CLIN?

There is no qualification specific to a particular CLIN.

If company’s proposal is awarded a CLPS2 contract, then the company will be eligible to bid on any task order solicited under the master contract, regardless of

CLIN.

216 Final RFP CLIN 3 refers to “The development of payloads to perform technology demonstrations and/or scientific investigations.” Are proposers expected to have experience in payload fabrication and operation or team members that do?

Offerors awarded a CLPS2 master contract are not required to proposed on all task orders. Proposals for task order awards will be evaluated based on the criteria described at the task order level. The CLPS2 technical acceptability factor does not address payload fabrication or operation, so those qualifications are not being evaluated in the CLPS2 RFP.

217 Final RFP Is: "General Access and Data Rights: The Contractor shall provide NASA and its authorized support service contractors safe and suitable access to all data, facilities, and personnel used in the performance of this contract. This includes the ability to review data in usable formats and observe activities at contractor, subcontractor, or partner facilities. The Contractor is responsible for executing any necessary third-party data rights agreements with suppliers to facilitate this access at no additional cost to the Government."

Will the Government identify what scope this applies to in each task order and what other contractors the Offeror will be required to enter into NDAs with upon being awarded the task order? If not, how will the Offeror know this information to execute properly?

NASA will outline the data products that will be used in the performance of the contract and the data rights associated with those data products at the task order level. The contractor will be responsible for executing third party data rights agreements with its suppliers to facilitate access to NASA and its authorized support contractors.

218 Final RFP "Prior to execution of payload delivery missions and services under this contract, the Contractor shall deliver information necessary to enable NASA payload integration planning and complete a readiness review to demonstrate the Contractor’s ability to provide end-to-end payload delivery services."

What does "[p]rior to execution of payload delivery missions and services under this contract" mean? For example, is this after task order award, a standard task order milestone, or should the information be provided at time of task order proposal?

"Prior to execution of payload delivery missions and services" means that it needs to happen before launch of the payloads to the Moon. The specific timeline will be specified at the task order level.

219 Final RFP Is: "(b) General Access and Data Rights: The Contractor shall provide NASA and its authorized support service contractors safe and suitable access to all data, facilities, and personnel used in the performance of this contract. This includes the ability to review data in usable formats and observe activities at contractor, subcontractor, or partner facilities. The Contractor is responsible for executing any necessary third-party data rights agreements with suppliers to facilitate this access at no additional cost to the Government."

Will the Government define what data rights are applicable to Insight information and Collaborations at the task order level? Is this something the Offerors can propose? Typically, Collaborations have been given GPR, but Insight has been proprietary and not subject to FAR data rights clauses. What is NASA's intent for data rights for these two items for this program?

NASA will outline the data products that will be used in the performance of the contract and the data rights associated with those data products at the task order level. The contractor will be responsible for executing third party data rights agreements with its suppliers to facilitate access to NASA and its authorized support contractors. Offerors are not asked to propose their own data rights arrangements. The specific rights for data products shared in collaborations and insight will be specified at the task order level.

220 Final RFP "e. Note: NASA will provide, to the Contractor, analytical models and products as needed as part of the task order execution process."

Can NASA please include verification testing and hazard information within this section? E.g., should be: "e. Note: NASA will provide, to the Contractor, analytical models, verification testing and hazard information, and other products as needed as part of the task order execution process." If NASA will not make this proposed change, can NASA please confirm that this data be considered covered as "products [to be provided] as needed"?

We have edited section C.4.4and added "payload testing and payload hazard information" to the same section in RFP Amendment 1.

221 Final RFP "Deployed Non-NASA Payloads. The Contractor shall inform NASA of any Contractor or other non-NASA deployed payloads sharing a mission with a NASA provided payload. The Contractor shall manage the deployment of these such that they do not interfere with the NASA provided payloads."

Can NASA add "provided" here to align with Section 4 terminology? E.g., should be: "Deployed Non-NASA Provided Payloads. The Contractor shall inform NASA of any Contractor or other non-NASA provided deployed payloads sharing a mission with a NASA provided payload. The Contractor shall manage the deployment of these such that they do not interfere with the NASA provided payloads."

This matches the NASA terminology provided throughout Section 4 and under Section 4.2 that states, "Payload accommodation services are those services described in paragraphs 4.3-4.7. These payload accommodation services are applicable to NASA provided payloads integrated onto the Contractor’s spacecraft." If NASA will not make this proposed change, can NASA please explain why?

No change is made. NASA believes that current language captures the intended meaning.

222 Final RFP "Should NASA decide to terminate NASA payload operations prior to the expiration of required spacecraft operations, the Contractor will be relieved of all payload-related obligations."

Should this state, “Should NASA decide to terminate NASA provided payload operations…” to match the NASA terminology provided throughout Section 4?

See answer to question 221.

223 Final RFP "(d) B.6, entitled “JSC 52.216-90 IDIQ MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM ORDERING LIMITS,” will be modified to state:"

Can NASA please specify that this requirement applies if the contract option is exercised? E.g., should be: "(d) If the option to extend the term of the contract is exercised, clause "JSC

52.216-90 IDIQ MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM ORDERING

LIMITS,” will be modified to state:"

If NASA will not make this proposed change, can NASA please explain their reasoning?

No change is required. Section B.6 applies to the entire contract, not only to the option period. The clause establishes the IDIQ minimum and maximum ordering limits up front, as required by FAR 52.216-22 for all IDIQ contracts. The $25,000 guaranteed minimum and the $10,000,000,000 NTE (which represents the cumulative ceiling for all CLPS2 awards) apply to the contract as issued and are not dependent on exercising an option. Therefore, NASA will not revise the clause to limit it only to the option period.

224 Final RFP "(e) I.3, entitled “52.216-18 ORDERING,” will be modified to state:"

Can NASA please specify that this requirement applies if the contract option is exercised? E.g., should be: "(e) If the option to extend the term of the contract is exercised, clause “52.216-18 ORDERING,” will be modified to state:"

If NASA will not make this proposed change, can NASA please explain their reasoning?

No, NASA does not plan to add conditional language.

The modified clause already reflects the full ordering period of the contract, including the base period and all potential option periods, through September 30, 2041.

Under an IDIQ structure, the Ordering clause (FAR 52.216-18) is written to cover the entire contract ordering timeline upfront. If NASA elects to exercise options, the Ordering clause already governs those periods without needing additional conditional statements.

225 Final RFP "Task-Order and Delivery-Order Ombudsman. [fill in (a)"

Recommend deleting "[fill in (a)".

The requirement(s) will remain as written.

226 Final RFP "(6) "Party" means a party to an Agreement involving activities in connection with the Commercial Lunar Payload Services project, including the Parties to this contract."

Since a contract is different than an agreement, can NASA please add "or contract" to this definition? I.e., should be: "(6) "Party" means a party to an Agreement or contract involving activities in connection with the Commercial Lunar Payload Services project, including the Parties to this contract."

No, NASA will not revise this definition. In this clause, the term “Agreement” is a defined term that already encompasses agreements executed under, or in support of, the CLPS program, and the definition explicitly states it includes the Parties to this contract. Because the definition already captures contractors under the CLPS2 contract, adding “or contract” is unnecessary.

227 Final RFP Recommend deleting the following clause because the amount of liability could change or be negotiated based on the work under the applicable task order. This is unnecessary language to include in the IDIQ: "The language to be added in a task order, at NASA’s discretion, for high-value NASA payloads:

Insurance and financial capability requirements.

(1) Pursuant to section (d) of the H. XX of the master contract, the Government shall waive claims only to the extent such claims exceed the maximum amount of the Contractor’s insurance or financial capability as required below.

(2) Throughout the performance of the contract, the Contractor shall maintain insurance, or demonstrate financial capability to compensate, for damage to U.S. Government property, except for:

(i) Damage or loss resulting from the willful misconduct of the Government or its employees; or

(ii) Damage to U.S. Government property that is otherwise covered pursuant to the insurance required for FAA licensing.

(2) The insurance required by paragraph (e)(i) shall be in the amount of $100 million, or a lesser amount that is the maximum amount available in the market at reasonable cost, subject to approval by the Contracting Officer. Financial capability, if authorized by the Contracting Officer, shall be in the amount of $100 million.

(3) Insurance policies shall name the United States Government as an additional insured party.

(4) The Contractor shall provide evidence of the insurance or financial capability to the Contracting Officer upon request, and such insurance or financial capability is subject to Contracting Officer approval. Once approved by the Contracting Officer, the Contractor shall not modify or cancel the insurance policy without the prior, written approval of the Contracting Officer.

(5) In the event any losses or damages are covered by insurance, the Government may, at its discretion, request that insurance proceeds be applied directly to the repair or replacement of such

NASA will not be removing the H.4 1852.228-78

CROSS-WAIVER OF LIABILITY FOR SCIENCE

OR SPACE EXPLORATION ACTIVITIES

UNRELATED TO THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE

STATION (SEP 2025) (DEVIATED) clause at the master contract level.

damage or loss, rather than paid directly to the Government. The Government may request that all insurance proceeds be made payable directly to the party making the repairs or providing a replacement. Such repair or replacement shall be to the satisfaction of the Contracting Officer. If losses or damages exceed available insurance, the Government shall have the right to prioritize the application of insurance proceeds."

If NASA will not make this proposed change, can NASA please explain their reasoning?

228 Final RFP "(2) The maximum value of IDIQ contracts awarded in accordance with the On-Ramp Clause are subject to the limitations defined in Clause JSC 52.216-90 MINIMUM AND

MAXIMUM ORDERING LIMITS."

This section reference is incorrect. We recommend removing this section reference and instead simply referencing the applicable clause.

NASA has removed the incorrect clause reference “I.10” in the amendment 1. The text now references only the correct clause, JSC 52.216-90, MINIMUM

AND MAXIMUM ORDERING LIMITS.

229 Final RFP H.10 Planetary Protection is a duplication of H.15(b) Planetary Protection. Recommend combining or removing one.

If NASA will not make this proposed change, can NASA please explain why?

We have deleted Planetary Protection in H.10.

230 Final RFP "(d) If the Contracting Officer notifies the Contractor of an incorrect notice and the Contractor fails to respond by either removing or correcting the marking within 60 days after receipt of such notice, the Government, at the Contracting Officer’s sole discretion, shall have the right to issue a decision pertaining to the validity of an asserted restriction and to correct the markings after said period, and the data will no longer be made subject to any disclosure prohibitions."

Can NASA please add the following bolded statement to this requirement? I.e., should be: "(d) If the Contracting Officer notifies the Contractor of an incorrect notice and the Contractor fails to respond by either removing or correcting the marking within 60 days after receipt of such notice, the Government, at the Contracting Officer’s sole discretion, shall have the right to issue a decision pertaining to the validity of an asserted restriction and to correct the markings after said period, and the data will no longer be made subject to any disclosure prohibitions, unless the Contractor files suit in a court of competent jurisdiction within 90 days of receipt of the Contracting Officer’s decision." in order to comply with the associated FAR clause.

No, NASA will not add the proposed language.

If NASA will not make this proposed change, can NASA please explain their reasoning?

231 Final RFP For Category 2 (NASA Payload Data), should data types include NASA provided payloads that are not owned by NASA? This would match the terminology used throughout Section 4 and without it this use case would not be covered.

The RFP has been amended to state: "including but not limited to" in Table H-1.

232 Final RFP "(1) All data first produced in the performance of this contract on the Lunar or Celestial Surface or onboard the CLPS2 spacecraft by assets used by or on behalf of the U.S. Government, including, but not limited to: NASA Sponsored Payloads on CLPS2 spacecraft and other future assets;" and "(c)Photos, video, other imagery, and sound first produced in the performance of this contract, when NASA-Sponsored Payloads are on the lunar or other celestial surface, are subject to the applicability of FAR 52.227-17, Rights in Data – Special Works as specified herein, are not considered scientific and/or technical articles, and are subject to the prior written permission of the Contracting Officer before release, reproduction, distribution or publication of such data."

NASA sponsored payload captures the meaning intended. All references throughout the RFP have been changed from "NASA provided" to "NASA-sponsored."in RFP amendment 1.

"NASA Sponsored Payloads" the same as a NASA provided payload? Can NASA please change this language to align with terminology used throughout Section 4?

233 Final RFP The data types provided in the "Data Types" column are too restrictive. NASA should not dictate what data we can and cannot assert limited rights on, and this should solely be up to the determination of the Contractor based upon what types of information they developed using their own funding. Can NASA confirm that these are suggestions or examples only? If not, can NASA please explain why?

See answer to question #231.

234 Final RFP Some of H.19 is a repeat of SOW Section 3.2. Should the SOW point to this contract clause instead of listing the same information in both places? If NASA will not make this proposed change, can NASA please explain why?

NASA wants this information in the SOW as well as in H.19.

235 Final RFP "(2) Disclaimer. NASA makes no warranty whatsoever as to the availability or suitability of NASA property, facilities, assets, information and data, services, or FTEs made available under this clause. The Contractor assumes all responsibility for determining the suitability for use of all NASA resources, including technical suitability, schedule availability, and cost.

NASA provides all resources as-is. The Contractor uses all NASA resources at its own risk."

Can NASA please specify that NASA provided payloads are excluded in this provision? NASA is responsible for ensuring the technical suitability of any hardware provided for interface compatibility testing/verification and for the payload, with the

No, NASA will not exclude NASA-Sponsored payloads from H.20. Clause H.20 identifies the requirements and process for executing government task agreements (GTA) and requesting resources during the execution of a task order. If during the execution of a task order a GTA is requested by the Contractor then the Contractor is uses the NASA provided resources at its own risk. If the Contractor is in possession of a NASA-Sponsored payload then the Contractor is responsible to maintain its safety or security.

requirements for that "suitability" being captured in the jointly-developed Contractor/NASA ICD. If NASA will not make the change, can NASA please explain their reasoning?

236 Final RFP "(5) Title to or license rights. The Government shall retain title to or license rights in all data and information provided under this clause. Title to or license rights in data or information provided under this clause shall not be affected by its incorporation into or attachment to any data not owned by or licensed to the Government."

Can NASA please specify that this requirement applies to data provided by the Government? I.e., should be: "(5) Title to or license rights. The Government shall retain title to or license rights in all data and information provided by the Government under this clause." Recommend change avoids conflicting with the Contractor data right assertions and other…