CLPS2 Final RFP Q-A Release 6.12.26.pdf

Ref No. Document Title: Page: Section:

Reference:

Appendix A or

DRFP

Question: Response

83 80JSC026R00

15 Final RFP 152

L.16.5

TECHNICAL

VOLUME I

Does a lander proposed under Pathway 2 need to be the same lander that will be used for responses to future Task Order RFTPs?

No, the RFP states in section L16.5b2(i): " the Contractor must show that they have designed, integrated, and built a lander that was engineered to softly touch down at a location on the lunar surface." This does not specify a lander that will later be proposed on RFTPs. Pathway 2 requires an offeror to propose a lander "engineered to softly touch down at one location on the lunar surface".

84 80JSC026R00

15 Final RFP NA

L.16.7

MODEL

CONTRACT

VOLUME III

The top table of this section says to complete blocks 12, 17 and 30 of the 1449. The 1449 itself says to fill out blocks 12, 17, 23, 24 and 30. Please clarify which set of numbers is correct.

The instructions in Section L take precedence. Offerors should complete only Blocks 12, 17, and 30 of the SF‑1449 as stated in the table in this section. Any additional blocks referenced on the face of the SF‑1449 are part of the form’s general instructions but are not required for this solicitation. NASA will complete the remaining applicable blocks at award.

85 80JSC026R00

15 Final RFP NA Attachment J-8

For an offeror relying on Box B of the CLPS 2.0 Domestic Source Self-Certification Form, which office or point of contact should the offeror engage with, if any, and what process, if any, should the offeror follow to address the “Secretary of Transportation finds” language in 51 U.S.C. § 50101?

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/.

86 80JSC026R00

15 Final RFP NA Attachment J-8

For purposes of the CLPS 2.0 Domestic Source Self-Certification Form, may an offeror relying on Box B self-certify where the offeror has made a good-faith legal and factual determination that it satisfies the first two statutory prongs of 51 U.S.C. § 50101, namely, that (1) the subsidiary has demonstrated a substantial commitment to the United States market and (2) the foreign parent’s country affords reciprocal treatment to comparable United States companies, without prior confirmation or non-objection from the Department of Transportation before proposal submission? Or does NASA expect offerors to obtain some form of prior written Department of Transportation confirmation, such as a non-objection, informal written guidance, or other written communication?

No, for an offeror to rely on Box B, it must have a determination from the DOT verifying its compliance with 51 U.S.C. 50101 to be considered a US Commercial Provider. NASA may request an offeror provide documentation from DOT of such determination at any time to verify compliance.

87 80JSC026R00

15 Final RFP NA Attachment J-8

For purposes of the CLPS 2.0 Domestic Source Self-Certification Form, if prior Department of Transportation confirmation is not required, may the offeror include an explanatory attachment supporting its Box B certification without modifying the certification form itself?

See response #86

88 80JSC026R00

15 Final RFP 156

L.16.6

RESPONSIBLITY

CONSIDERATIO

NS - VOL II (c) and (d)

Letter (c) says the Subcontracting Arrangement Information is for small businesses only. Letter (d) on the following page asks for Attachment J-7 and doesn't stipulate that this submission is only for large businesses. The top table in L.16.7 says in its heading that H.21 Small Business Subcontracting Goals are to be filled in. Please clarify if a small business is to submit J-7 and fill out Section H of the Model Contract.

No, small businesses are exempt from submitting Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Attachment J‑7) and do not fill out Section H Small Business Subcontracting Goals and this will be updated in RFP Amendment 1. Only large businesses are required to complete Section H.21 Small Business Subcontracting Goals and submit Attachment J‑7 as part of their proposal.

89 80JSC026R00

15 Final RFP 155

L.16.6

RESPONSIBLITY

CONSIDERATIO

NS - VOL II (a)

It's stated that contractors are to submit an OCI Avoidance Plan in Volume II but the table in section L.16.7 says to submit J-1 in Volume III. Please clarify into which volume the OCI Avoidance Plan is to be submitted.

The Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI) Plan(Attachment J-1) should be submitted in Volume II Responsibility. The Model Contract Volume III requirements will be updated in Amendment 1 to reflect that Attachment J-1 is to be delivered in Volume II.

J-1 is the actual OCI plan deliverable for volume II, and J-2 is the requirements description for J-1.

90 80JSC026R00

15 Final RFP L.9.(d)

States "remainder of all questions are due June 5, 2026" but L.12.(b) lists the date for questions as May 29, 2026. Please clarify.

The correct date is June 5, 2026. The May 29th date in Section L.12(b) was an error and should be disregarded. The Final RFP due date for all remaining questions is June 5, 2026 as identified in Amendment 1.

91 80JSC026R00

15 Final RFP NA Attachment J-8

If a contractor who is a foreign subsidiary is considered to be a US commercial provider, is its labor counted as domestic for domestic sourcing?

The requirement to be a US Commercial Provider is separate and distinct from the requirement that all space transportation vehicles be domestic end product. Only Labor performed in the US will be considered domestic labor for purposes of the domestic end product requirement.

CLPS2 Draft RFP Q&A Release June 12, 2026

92 80JSC026R00

15 Final RFP 155

L.16.5

TECHNICAL

VOLUME I, (3)

Pathway 3

If the high-thrust spacecraft proposed to satisfy Pathway 3 is a lunar lander that successfully completed over 24 hours of operations and successfully met the primary objectives for the core propulsion and avionics subsystems but did not complete a successful landing, does this violate the requirement for not having experienced a catastrophic failure?

No, a failure to land does not neccessarily qualify as a catastrophic failure with regard to this pathway. Only failures in the core competencies of propulsion or avionics should be considered. This clarification will be included in RFP Amendment 1.

93 Final RFP

Given page count constraints and the Final RFP statement "each proposal will be evaluated against criteria defined under Pathways 1, 2, or 3," if an offeror is qualified to submit a proposal under multiple Pathways, are they to write their technical volume to justify how they qualify for each distinct Pathway? Or will offeror's only be evaluated against a single selected Pathway that they believe best represents their best overall offering to the CLPS2 IDIQ?

The RFP specifies in L.16.5 (b) that : "Offerors shall clearly specify in their proposal whether they are submitting under Pathway 1, Pathway 2, or Pathway 3 for evaluation".

Therefore only one Pathway will be evaluated and it will be the one specified by the Offeror.

94 RESERVED RESERVED RESERVED

95 Final RFP

For Pathway 3, must the >90 lbf engine have been part of a flown in-space mission, or can the thrust threshold and mission-duration evidence come from separate missions or unflown systems?

Yes, the >90 lbf engine must have flown in space. The RFP in section L16.5b3(i) states: "To meet this requirement, the Contractor must show that it has met the flight-proven technical baseline, meaning that they have designed, integrated, built, and operated a high-thrust spacecraft in space and conducted a mission with a lifetime longer than 24 hours." The RFP also states in the same section:"For the purposes of this qualification, thrust and duration requirements may be met across separate missions".

96 Final RFP Does “at least one engine” exclude aggregate thrust from multiple smaller thrusters? Yes, the RFP states in section L16.5b3(i) : "A "high thrust" spacecraft is defined as having at least one engine capable of producing a force greater than 90 lbf."

97 Final RFP

For Pathway 2, must the fully assembled lander have completed structural, TVAC, shock, and EMI/EMC acceptance testing before initial proposal submission, and must it be the same architecture/configuration being proposed?

Yes, the RFP states in section L16.5b2(i): "The Contractor must demonstrate that the lander had been fully assembled ... and that the fully assembled lander has successfully completed an acceptance test campaign increasing the likelihood of successful delivery." This means that it must be demonstrated to be completed. The RFP also states: " the Contractor must show that they have designed, integrated, and built a lander that was engineered to softly touch down at a location on the lunar surface." An offeror needs to demonstrate that the proposed lander was designed, integrated, and built by the Contractor and "engineered to softly touch down at one location on the lunar surface".

98 Final RFP

May a U.S. subsidiary rely on foreign-parent or foreign-affiliate lander heritage while still satisfying Domestic Source requirements?

The RFP defines the specific ways an offeror can demonstrate heritage in order to be acceptable under the Technical Acceptability Factor. Any heritage or expertise must be demonstrated to be fully accessible by the Offeror. This will be evaluated by the Evaluation Board.

99 Final RFP Will NASA consider extending the response deadline until July 15, 2026? No, NASA will not extend the deadline.

100 Final RFP

There appear to be conflicting FAR Part 12 and Part 15 clauses, can the USG please clarify intent or determine if any of the IDIQ clauses will be removed or modified?

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.

101 Final RFP

In section I.18, how does NASA plan to obligate $25K for first task order and what will be the scope and deliverable? The USG stated they will assign $25K value to the initial IDIQ, which also seems to have reporting requirements. Is the USG’s intent to assign that value in funding as well to allow for invoicing of the time spent for reporting?

The Attachment L-1 Task Order 1 - Standard Interface Report with a value of $25K will be issued to CLPS2 awardees.

102 Final RFP In section F.4 Option to Extend, is NASA amendable to changing the notification from 7 days to 30 days? 30 days’ notice will allow for optimal resource planning.

No. NASA does not intend on changing the notification from 7 days to 30 days.

103 Final RFP Will the USG consider removing Government Purpose Rights regarding pathway one Offeror proprietary data and instead replace with limited rights, which is more appropriate?

NASA does not plan to utilize Government Purpose Rights for CLIN 1 task orders.

104 Final RFP

Table L-2 in section L.16-1 states that the Technical Volume page limit is 50 pages. Is the 50-page limit per each pathway proposed?

No. Only one pathway may be proposed and only one proposal may be submitted per offeror. The 50‑page Technical Volume limit applies to the proposal. Since each Offeror may submit only one proposal, the limit applies only to the single pathway.

105 RESERVED RESERVED RESERVED

106 Final RFP

Can the USG please confirm receipt of a Master Subcontracting Plan with the IDIQ Proposal is sufficient? Individual Small Business Plans cannot be written until time of Task Order RFP when costing will be included.

A Master Subcontracting Plan is acceptable; however, an Individual Subcontracting Plan that clearly outlines the specific goals for this contract is still required at the time of proposal submission. In addition, H.21 and DRD J-7 must be submitted with the proposal.

107 Final RFP Does NASA plan to add a category under clause H.17 to cover the transfer vehicle? Yes, clause H.17, Category 1 in Table H-1 includes lander and associated spacecraft.

This will be clarified in the RFP amendment 1.

108 Final RFP Can NASA confirm whether or not the DD250 will be signed prior to launch? No, NASA will not accept a DD250 prior to launch, except for deliveries for CLIN2.

109 Final RFP Will the USG consider self-insuring, with transfer of liability prior to launch, to lower the cost to the mission and US tax payers?

No, NASA will not self-insure with transfer of liability prior to launch, except for deliveries for CLIN2.

110 Final RFP

Can NASA please clarify what licensing, permits, or other requirements they expect industry providers to obtain as referenced in Clause H.9?

Clause H.9(a) identifies the types of licensing, permits, and other requirements industry is expected to obtain: "The Contractor shall obtain and maintain the necessary licenses, permits, clearances, and insurance that may be required by the Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, Department of Commerce, Federal Communications Commission, Food and Drug Administration, Department of Defense, NASA, or other Governmental agencies in order to provide services under this contract."

111 Final RFP

The new CLN 1 of the RFP has broadened the scope of CLPS to include payload deliveries not just to the lunar surface, but also to "Lunar orbit, Lagrangian points, and other destinations, such as asteroids and planets, as defined by NASA." At the same time, all three Pathways that companies can use to demonstrate their technical qualifications seem focused on demonstrating lunar landing capability. So, a company that has the capability to build an operate lunar or Mars orbiters, or spacecraft that can land on small bodies like asteroids, but is not intending to build a high-thrust lunar lander, will not be able to compete even for future non-lunar landing task orders.

What are NASA's intentions regarding CLPS and non-lunar landing task orders? Will eligibility be broadened, and will an on-ramp be provided before those task orders go out? Do companies interested in bidding for non-lunar landing task orders need to partner with a CLPS-certified prime if they do not build lunar landers themselves?

No, the technical acceptability criteria provided in the RFP establishes the core competencies required for lunar landing, such that associated risks do not jeopardize an acceptable level of contract performance. The current anticipated task orders are expected to be for lunar surface delivery. Non-lunar landing task orders, if issued, will be competed within the CLPS2 pool. Eligibility for yearly on ramps is expected to remain the same as the CLPS2 RFP. Offerors interested in bidding on non-lunar landing task orders issued under CLPS2 would need to first qualify to be in the CLPS2 pool via one of the 3 pathways described in the RFP.

112 Final RFP Is there an intent to use CLPS for non-lunar surface deliveries in the near-term, or was that language added to show NASA's intent to leverage the CLPS program more broadly in the future?

At this time there are no specific task orders planned under CLPS2 to destinations other than the lunar surface, however NASA's plans can change rapidly to respond to new directives.

113 Final RFP

Will there be another on ramp for launch providers/lander builders in the CLPS2 pro-gram?

Yes, clause H.6(c) outlines the schedule for the On-ramp: "When requested, offerors will be allowed to submit proposals that may result in contract award(s) to new providers and/or the addition of new capabilities to existing contracts. NASA anticipates requesting proposals each calendar year starting in 2027"

114 Final RFP

Will there be a future onramp date (similar to the 2023 onramp for CLPS 1.0) for additional companies to be added to the contract?

Yes, there will be a future on-ramp for additional companies to be added to the contract. Reference clause H.6(c) outlines the schedule for the On-ramp: "When requested, offerors will be allowed to submit proposals that may result in contract award(s) to new providers and/or the addition of new capabilities to existing contracts.

NASA anticipates requesting proposals each calendar year starting in 2027."

115 Cover Letter 2 Item #3

Is: "Disclosure of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Use During Contract Performance.

Offerors are required to disclose any intent to propose, or plan to use, Artificial Intelligence (AI) to perform contract requirements."

How is NASA expecting this to be reported, and how will this process work in practice? Can NASA please provide additional details on what type of AI technologies, tools, or systems would be in scope of this requirement?

The Office of the Chief Data & AI Officer (CDAIO) is in the process of developing these parameters. Until these parameters are defined, and OP issues formal guidance to incorporate these parameters, contracting officers are directed to refrain from including the “Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) During Contract Performance” requirement statement in solicitations, contracts, and orders. Any existing references within PIC 25- 03A and the Office of Procurement agency wide templates referencing contractor disclosure of AI use should be disregarded until revised templates and accompanying guidance are issued.

116 RFP 5 3.0

Is: "The Contractor shall provide personnel that can obtain and maintain a TOP SECRET/Sensitive Compartmented Information (TS/SCI) clearance. The Contractor shall be prepared to obtain and maintain a National Security Facility Clearance Level (FCL) up to TOP SECRET and as identified by the Government at the task order level. The government will provide advance notice when TOP SECRET clearance will be needed. Proof of a TOP SECRET National Security Facility Clearance (FCL) shall be required to be submitted by the Contractor at time of an applicable task order proposal. This clearance shall be maintained throughout the life of the Task order.

Applicable security clearances up to TOP SECRET//Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) shall be maintained for the life of the applicable Task Order. NASA will sponsor SCI clearances."

Can Contractors submit personnel for initial clearances at time of IDIQ contract award?

No. Contractors may not submit personnel for initial security clearances at the time of IDIQ contract award. Clearances, both personnel and facility, are initiated only when a task order requires them, and NASA will provide advance notice at that time.

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."

Insight data should be added to the data rights section of the solicitation. If it is not, can NASA provide a reason as to why and explain what data markings would be applicable to Insight data? If NASA will not make the change, please explain why.

The referenced Insight data is identified in Section H.19, NASA ENHANCED INSIGHT AND COLLABORATION, subparagraph (b). Insight Data is normally understood to be referring to the technical data of which NASA is not requesting formal delivery, but to which NASA requires “access” for understanding the Contractor’s technical approach to a matter in which NASA review and/or certification is requested/needed. Therefore the data rights clauses will not be updated.

118 RFP 8 3.2

Is: "Resident Office and Facilities: NASA may elect to establish a resident office at the Contractor’s, subcontractor’s and partner’s major engineering or manufacturing facilities. The Contractor, subcontractor, and partner shall provide necessary accommodations (e.g., office space, network access, and administrative support) for up to two (2) NASA representatives per location."

Is this intended to be an IDIQ-level provision, or will requirements be specified at the task order level, consistent with how this is defined for the other requirements in Section 3.2? If at the task order level, can this be specified in the solicitation to state the needs for this will be defined at the task order level?

The resident office and facilities are listed under clause H.19(a) and section 3.2 in the SOW: "NASA's monitoring 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..."

119 RFP 9 4.3

We recommend that NASA add the following items under the Mission Integration scope:

"NASA shall:

a. Provide the corollary payload personnel, data, and participation to enable integration.

b. Provide contractors access to the payload or an equivalent test unit for joint interface testing."

NASA will not add the recommended items. The statement of work outlines the Contractor's responsibilities. NASA responsibilities will be specified in the individual task orders.

120 RFP 53 H.17, Table H-1 Data types under Category 1 (Lander Proprietary) may include more than just what is listed under this clause.

Agreed, and RFP Amendment 1 provides clarification in Table H-1.

RFP

121 RFP 59 H.20

Is: "(5) Contractor Waiver of Claims. By choosing to use NASA in support of contract performance, Contractor hereby waives any claims against NASA, its employees, its related entities, (including, but not limited to, Contractors and subcontractors at any tier, grantees, investigators, customers, users, and its Contractors and subcontractors at any tier) and employees of NASA’s related entities for any injury to, or death of, Contractor’s employees or the employees of Contractor’s related entities, or for damage to, or loss of, Contractor’s property or the property of its related entities arising from or related to activities conducted pursuant to this Clause, whether such injury, death, damage, or loss arises through negligence or otherwise, except in the case of willful misconduct. The Contractor further agrees to extend this waiver to its related entities by requiring them, by contract or otherwise, to waive all claims against NASA, its related entities, and employees of NASA and employees of NASA’s related entities for injury, death, damage, delay, or loss arising from or related to activities conducted pursuant to this clause."

Recommend adding the following language: "For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this paragraph shall apply to, or otherwise limit, impair, or waive, any rights or remedies the Contractor may have under applicable law (including, without limitation, the Trade Secrets Act or the Defend Trade Secrets Act) or under this contract with respect to any actual or alleged misuse, improper handling, or unauthorized disclosure by the Government of the Contractor’s proprietary information, trade secrets, or other data or information owned or controlled by the Contractor." If NASA will not make the change, please explain why.

NASA will not revise the H.20 USE OF GOVERNMENT RESOURCES waiver‑of‑claims language. This is the approved clause language that is in the best interest of NASA to provide Government resources.

122 RFP 61 H.20

Recommend deletion of: "(6) Waiver of Claims and Indemnification. The Contractor agrees to waive any and all claims against the Government and shall indemnify and release the Government, its agents, and employees from every claim or liability, including attorney’s fees, court costs, and expenses, arising out of, or in any way related to, the misuse or unauthorized modification, reproduction, release, performance, display, or disclosure of the data and information provided under this clause and related data by the Contractor, a subcontractor, or by any person to whom the Contractor has released or disclosed such data and information provided under this clause or related data."

If NASA will not make this change, please explain why.

NASA will not delete paragraph (6) because the waiver‑of‑claims and indemnification requirement is a core element of NASA’s data‑rights framework and is necessary to protect the Government from liability arising from a contractor’s or subcontractor’s misuse, unauthorized release, or improper handling of Government‑provided data.

123 RFP 61 H.20

Recommend deletion of: "(7) Flow-down of Waiver of Claims and Indemnification.

The Contractor shall include this clause, suitably modified to identify the parties, in all subcontracts, regardless of tier, which involve use of the data and information provided under this clause and/or related data in any way. At all tiers, the clause shall be modified to define data and information provided under this clause as it is defined herein and to identify the parties as follows: references to the Government are not changed, and in all references to the Contractor the subcontractor is substituted for the Contractor so that the subcontractor has all rights and obligations of the Contractor in the clause. In subcontracts, at any tier, the Government, the subcontractor, and the Contractor agree that the mutual obligations of the parties created by this clause constitute a contract between the subcontractor and the Government with respect to the matters covered by the clause."

If NASA will not make this change, please explain why.

NASA will not delete paragraph (7) because it is mandated flow‑down language tied to a specific NFS clause (e.g., NFS 1852.227‑88) that must be included in all subcontracts involving use of the subject data, regardless of tier to preserve the Government’s rights and ensure the subcontractor assumes the prime contractor’s obligations

124 RFP 70 -

71 I.2

Is: "(t) Comptroller General examination of record. This paragraph applies if this contract was awarded using other than sealed bid procedures and is in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold on the date of award of this contract.

(1) The Comptroller General of the United States, or an authorized representative of the Comptroller General, shall have access to and right to examine any of the Contractor’s directly pertinent records involving transactions related to this contract.

(2) The Contractor shall make available at its offices, at all reasonable times, the records, materials, and other evidence for examination, audit, or reproduction, until 3 years after final payment under this contract or for any shorter period specified in FAR part 4, longer period required by statute, or periods specified in other clauses of this contract. If this contract is completely or partially terminated, the records relating to the work terminated shall be made available for 3 years after any resulting final termination settlement. Records relating to appeals under the disputes clause or to litigation or the settlement of claims arising under or relating to this contract shall be made available until such appeals, litigation, or claims are finally resolved.

(3) As used in this clause, records include books, documents, accounting procedures and practices, and other data, regardless of type and regardless of form. This clause does not require the Contractor to create or maintain any record that the Contractor does not maintain in the ordinary course of business or pursuant to a provision of law."

Can NASA please explain how this section is applicable to a FAR-based procurement?

This section is part of the standard 52.212-4 TERMS AND CONDITIONS – COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL SERVICES clause, this section is applicable because this contract will be awarded using other than sealed bid procedures and the value exceeds the simplified acquisition threshold.

125 RFP 107 I.9

Is: "I.9 52.227-14 RIGHTS IN DATA – GENERAL (MAY 2014) (DEVIATION) (ALT

I) (DEC 2007) (ALT II) (DEC 2007) (ALT III) AS MODIFIED BY NFS 1852.227-

14 (APR 2015)

This clause is only applicable to orders performed under CLIN 2 and CLIN 3."

Can NASA please explain why this version of the clause does not apply to CLIN 1?

NASA does not plan to utilize Government Purpose Rights for CLIN 1 task orders. I.9

52.227-14 RIGHTS IN DATA – GENERAL (MAY 2014) (ALT II) (DEC 2007) (ALT

III) (DEC 2007) AS MODIFIED BY NFS 1852.227-14 (APR 2015)

This clause is only applicable to orders performed under CLIN 1.

I.10 52.227-14 RIGHTS IN DATA – GENERAL (MAY 2014) (DEVIATION) (ALT II)

(DEC 2007) (ALT III) (DEC 2007) AS MODIFIED BY NFS 1852.227-14 (APR

2015) This clause is only applicable to orders performed under CLIN 2 and CLIN 3.

126 RFP 132 I.18

Recommend deleting: "(b) Upon award of the awardee’s first order, the initial funding amount provided at award will be subsequently de-obligated from the contract, and an obligation of equal or greater amount will be provided under the order in accordance with NFS 1852.232-77 LIMITATION OF FUNDS (FIXED-PRICE CONTRACT)."

If NASA will not remove (b) from this clause, can NASA explain why?

NASA will not remove section (b) from Contract Funding At Award. Funding is required per NFS 1852.232-77 and until a task order is issued the funding will be held at the contract level, subsequently when the task order is ready for issuance it will be deobligated and then moved to the task order level.

127 RFP 144 L.12

Is: "(b) QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS SOLICITATION MUST BE

PRESENTED

IN WRITING and shall be submitted electronically to the above e-mail address by May 29, 2026, in order that answers may be obtained and disseminated in a timely manner, since it is not expected that the proposal submission date will be extended.

Oral communications are not acceptable in response to this solicitation. Questions shall not be directed to the technical activity personnel."

Please clarify if questions are due June 5, 2026, or May 29, 2026.

See question 90 response.

128 RFP 149 L.16.3

Is: "(c) The offeror shall submit all proposal files to:

https://nasagov.box.com/s/o6skvlp0b37cnhbiucpjdlrx20l5owx1. The offeror shall follow instructions regarding proposal submission found at https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/procurement/other/EFSS-Box-Offeror-Proposal- Submission-Instructions.pdf."

Can NASA confirm whether the contents of the folder at the link above will be visible to all Offerors? How will NASA protect each Offeror's proposal?

No, the contents of the folder at the link above will not be visible to all offerors only their own content.

129 RFP 157 L.16.6

Is: "(h) Offerors may provide any additional information, not already addressed under another proposal Section that is necessary to demonstrate status as a responsible offeror under FAR 9.104, Standards."

Should the Attachment J-8 Domestic Source Self Certification be captured in this section as well?

No. Attachment J‑8 Domestic Source Self Certification is already a required as a stand‑alone submission in Volume II, Responsibility Considerations, and will be updated for clarification in Amendment 1. It is not optional and does not belong under the “additional information” provision in L‑16.5(h). That paragraph is intended only for any extra responsibility information an offeror wishes to provide.

130 RFP 157 L.16.7

Ref "Instructions for Preparation of the Model Contract. Offerors shall submit with its proposal, in Volume III, the Model Contract in its entirety (basic and any amendments) per the instructions below." and the Contract Sections in the table.

Can NASA please confirm that it wants Offerors to submit Contract Sections B-G and I with no changes from the solicitation?

Yes, the model contract (from the basic and any amendments) shall be submitted with no changes except the requested and applicable fill-ins updated by the offeror.

131 RFP 157 L.16.7

Ref Section J in the table, Attachments J-1, J-7, and J-8: Are these to be submitted as a part of Volume II Offer Volume/Responsibility Considerations or as a part of Volume III Model Contract?

Attachments J‑1, J‑7, and J‑8 to be submitted as part of Volume II Responsibility Considerations and have been clarified in Amendment 1.

132 RFP 159 M.1

Is the only information from Offeror Volume II that will factor into acceptability for award be the Domestic Source Self Certification (ref M.1(a)(2))? Will Volume III Model Contract not factor into an Offeror's ability to be awarded a contract?

The J-8 Domestic Source Self Certification is a factor for technical acceptability for award. In addition, an offeror must be determined responsible and submit all of the required items in section L.16.6. Lastly, reference section M.4, "Errors or inconsistencies in the Model Contract may result in an Offeror being removed from consideration for award."

133 H.14 (h), Pg

Should the Model Contract volume number be changed from Volume V to Volume

III?

Yes, the Model Contract volume number was revised to Volume III in amendment 1.

134 L-16.1 , Pg 147 Should the title of Volume II shown as, "Offer Volume", be changed to match the volume title reflected in other sections of the RFP - "Responsibility Considerations"?

No, "Offer Volume" title will not be changed. Responsibility is only one component of the Offer Volume, which also includes other sections such as Domestic Sourcing.

L-16.2 (a)(1), pg 147

L-16.2 (b)(6), pg 148

Can the Govt confirm TOC, list of Tables and Figures, and the Cross Reference List are not included in the page count?

Yes, the Table of Contents (TOC) will not be included in the page count, and this was revised in amendment 1. However, tables and figures, and Cross Reference List are included in the proposal page count and must comply with the stated page limitations.

136 L-16.4, pg 150 Should the title of this section reflect Volume III instead of Volume II? Attachment J‑8 remains in Volume II. The Domestic Source Self‑Certification is a responsibility/eligibility requirement, so it belongs in Volume II, Responsibility Considerations. This does not move to Volume III.

137 L.16.6 (d), Pg

Do we provide a master plan with the required compliance elements for the Small Business Subcontracting Plan for first proposal submittal as proof of the Small Business Program. Then at task order level address the extra requirements on the DRD-Attachment J-7 when we can identify subcontractors, dollars, and goals. This would be the commitment when we know the expectation and details considering deliverables that will be defined per task order including principle planned supplies and services, No. Offerors should provide a compliant Master Subcontracting Plan, and Individual Subcontracting Plan with the proposal. H.21 and DRD J-7 is required to be submitted with the proposal.

138 M.3.b, Pg 161

The only place the Capability Document is mentioned is in M.3.(b) – nothing in Section L. It does say in para. L.15, pg. 145, “Offeror’s are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified in the evaluation factors.” However, would the gov't consider adding a paragraph in Sec L.

describing specifically what contents of the Capabilities Document should be?

Section M.3 was revised in Amendment 1 to remove the term Capabilities Document and updated to reference the various information required by Section L.16.6 Offer Volume.

139 L.16, Pg 146

The Section L ID's in Table L-1 do not align to the Sections the content is listed under.

Can NASA confirm these numbers should be Section L.16.5(b) for all TA Pathways, L.16.6 for Volume II, and L.16.7 for Volume III to ensure the Section L and M Mapping is consistent?

The Section L IDs in Table L‑1 do not align with the sections where the content appears. NASA confirms that the correct references are L.16.5(b) for all TA Pathways, L.16.6 for Volume II, and L.16.7 for Volume III to ensure consistency with the Section L/M mapping. These corrections will be updated in the forthcoming amendment 1.

140 L.16.6 (b), Pg

Can NASA provide additional clarification or examples as to what qualifies as a suitable response to the Responsibility Determination Disclosures? According to FAR 9.104-1(a) offerors are required to submit documentation that demonstrates they have "adequate financial resources to perform the contract, or the ability to obtain them."

What qualifies as "adequate"?

Adequate financial resources may be demonstrated through documents such as recent financial statements, evidence of cash reserves, bank reference letters, committed lines of credit, or other financing commitments that show the offeror has, or can obtain, sufficient resources to perform CLPS 2.0 task orders.

"The three pathways in section L.16.5(b) appear to exclude Offerors who have not actually assembled a complete flight article for, at a minimum, acceptance testing, regardless of the credibility of any path to do so. As written, to our knowledge, this provision would exclude any potential providers not already in the program, including both Artemis HLS HDL vehicles, which are incomplete but have credible paths for the development and testing of flight hardware, among other vehicles with a similar credible path (including vehicles which have already flown complete missions, but under NASA operational control, which would exclude even Orion and STS from the term "flight heritage," and/or which were integrated by other prime contractor(s) for those missions and for which the intellectual property rights to the vehicle(s) in question have either been transferred to a new prime contractor or have lapsed, which would preclude the use of off-the-shelf vehicles, an approach which in our judgment offers significant cost and schedule advantages to the Government over clean-sheet vehicles). This requirement was not present in either the original CLPS program or in the Draft RFP and appears to exclude from consideration several competent and mature Offerors. Is the lack of such a path a deliberate policy choice, requiring potential Offerors not currently in possession of complete flight hardware (but whose path to doing so is technically and organizationally credible) to use the on-ramp provision at a later time, or is this an inadvertent omission to be corrected in a revision of the RFP?"

The technical acceptability criteria provided in the RFP establishes the core competencies required for lunar landing, such that associated risks do not jeopardize an acceptable level of contract performance. The requirement for 'in space’ demonstrations are identified in Pathways 1 and 3 . Whereas Pathway 2 does not require an 'in space' demonstration. Offerors that meet the technical acceptability factor are deemed to have the core competencies needed for all expected CLPS task orders. The RFP states that there will be yearly opportunities for on-ramp starting in 2027.

The proposed alternate language advances the agency’s goal of having a competitive pool of vendors to support mid-size cargo delivery to the lunar surface while maintaining NASA’s rigorous standards for onboarding to the vendor pool – ensuring that NASA has the partners capable of supporting the nation’s Moon Base.

We offer the options below for NASA’s consideration: Option A — Lower the threshold to 40 lbf and broaden the definition to include propulsion systems.

“However, the 24-hour mission lifetime requirement must be demonstrated in a single, continuous mission and cannot be achieved cumulatively. A ‘high thrust’ spacecraft is defined as having [a propulsion system] capable of producing a force greater than [40 lbf in a single direction].” (Section L.16.5.3(i) - pg. 154) Option B — Accept ground-based test data as an alternative to on-orbit demonstration.

“However, the 24-hour mission lifetime requirement must be demonstrated in a single, continuous mission and cannot be achieved cumulatively. A ‘high thrust’ spacecraft is defined as having at least one engine capable of producing a force greater than 90 lbf.

[This thrust requirement may be satisfied through a completed ground-based test campaign]” (Section L.16.5.3(i) - pg. 154)

The technical acceptability criteria provided in the RFP establishes the core competencies required for lunar landing, such that associated risks do not jeopardize an acceptable level of contract performance. NASA is not considering modifying the Technical Acceptability criteria.

Responsibility Determination Disclosures (Financial Capability): To determine if an Offeror is in accordance with FAR 9.104-1(a), Offeror is instructed to submit information which demonstrates its financial capability to perform the contract.

Acceptable information includes letters from certified United States banks indicating the available amount of credit for the business and the company’s annual report. Does NASA consider the offeror’s 2025 Annual Report, 2025 Form 10‑K, and 2026 Q1 Form 10‑Q to be adequate documentation for the Responsibility Determination Disclosures?

Yes, recent audited and interim financial statements, such as an offeror’s 2025 Annual Report, 2025 Form 10‑K, and 2026 Q1 Form 10‑Q, are acceptable documentation for purposes of NASA’s responsibility determination under FAR 9.104‑1, provided they demonstrate the offeror’s financial capability to perform the contract.

Provide the following information for the prime/joint venture partner, and each subcontractor with a value of %10 million and over; The company point of contact's name. job title, phone number, email address, and physical address. The company business size, type, UEI number, and cage code. Since there is no cost volume required or detailed scope identified, will there be an expectation of this requirement since we do not have an identified task or price for posible subcontractors?

Yes, in reference to L.16.6(C), submit any applicable subcontractors involved in the work used to demonstrate the Offeror's core competencies via Pathways 1, 2, or 3 should be listed here. For example, if the Offeror used an engine developed by a subcontractor with value over 10 million dollars that was flown in space on the Offerors spacecraft as part of a demonstration of Pathway 3 - then that contractor should be listed.

H.7 (b) 2: Contractor request for off ramp. The Contractor may request an early end date of the Ordering Period of this contract per clause I.3, Ordering via mutual agreement of the parties, (i.e., Off-Ramp). Contractor(s) without active task orders, can, by written request to the Contracting Officer request an off ramp. Such an off ramp request may be granted at NASA’s sole discretion by the Contracting Officer as a bilateral modification to the contract to end the contract at no cost to the Government I.5 (e.): Either party may cancel this contract in whole or in part by providing written notice. The cancellation will take effect 30 calendar days after the other party receives the notice of cancellation. If either party makes such notification, no further orders may be issued against the contract, but orders already awarded will be completed unless a termination action is taken against the order. If the Contractor elects to cancel this contract, the Government will not reimburse the minimum guarantee. Please provide clarification as it appears there is a conflict between H.7(b) 2 and I.5(e.) as to the conditions for customer termination/cancelation of the IDIQ

H.7(b)(2) provides a Contractor‑initiated, discretionary “off‑ramp” from the Ordering Period, is a bilateral modification at no cost to the Government. I.5(e) is a broader cancellation right that either party may invoke on 30 days’ written notice; is unilateral;

after notice, no further orders may be issued, existing task orders continue unless separately terminated, and if the Contractor cancels, the Government will not reimburse the minimum guarantee.

As stated in Section 4.1 of the RFP, "This contract is for payload delivery services to space destinations including the Lunar surface, Lunar orbit, Lunar Lagrangian points, and other destinations, such as asteroids and planets, as defined by NASA.” To accommodate these potential destinations should the wording in this section be modified to include these other destinations? Such as;

"The offeror must show how these core competencies can be leveraged to reduce the risk of a first-time lunar or other destination mission. and;

Secondly, the Contractor must show how this mission or set of missions provides heritage to a potential lunar lander or other destination increasing the likelihood of successful delivery.

and;

The Contractor must provide a technical justification showing how the heritage mission(s) validates the specific subsystems required for lunar or other destination delivery.

No, the current anticipated task orders are expected to be for lunar surface delivery.

Therefore we have largely focused the 3 Pathways on lunar landers.

CLPS2 Final RFP Q&A 6.12.26