CLPS2 Source Selection Statement.pdf

SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT

FOR COMMERCIAL LUNAR PAYLOAD SERVICES 2 (CLPS2)

Solicitation Number: 80JSC026R0015

On August 11, 2026, I, along with senior officials from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA or the Agency), met with the Streamlined Procurement Team (SLPT) appointed to evaluate proposals in connection with the Commercial Lunar Payload Services 2 (CLPS2) procurement. As the Source Selection Authority (SSA), I am responsible for making the source selection decision. Prior to the briefing, I was provided with the evaluation findings to review, which I did before attending the briefing. In addition to myself, the briefing was attended by members of the SLPT and senior-level NASA officials. During the briefing, the SLPT reported its evaluation results. I considered the information presented, asked questions, and received feedback from the advisors present. A follow-up meeting occurred August 31, 2026 to discuss the updated evaluation findings and finalize my selection decision. I considered the information presented and this memorandum documents my decision.

I. PROCUREMENT DESCRIPTION

CLPS2 is a competitive procurement that will result in Multiple Award Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts with the ability to issue Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) task/delivery orders. The contracts will include a 10-year base ordering period, followed by a five-year option period, for a total potential ordering period of 15 years.

CLPS2 requires end-to-end "commercial" payload services to fulfill NASA’s mission objectives.

NASA requires rapid acquisition and delivery of payloads that support and advance the Agency’s scientific and exploration objectives.

Under Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) 1, the Contractor shall determine the overall Mission Architecture and provide the end-to-end service (e.g., Lander, Mission Design and Analysis, Ground Systems, and Payload Support). For space deliveries the Contractor shall be responsible for launch vehicle selection and associated operations, all taxes/tariffs, licenses, permits, insurance, and approvals necessary to perform the mission, including following Export Control, Export Administration Regulations (EAR), and ITAR regulations when applicable. Payload Support includes: any necessary analysis and physical integration of NASA-sponsored payloads, launch and transport of NASA-sponsored payloads to specified space destinations, provision of resources (i.e. power, data, etc.) to the NASA-sponsored payloads, and other mutually agreed upon services such as the sale of non-NASA payload data to NASA. Services and operations that result from NASA’s payload delivery requirements may include intact landing on lunar or other celestial surfaces, impactor delivery, launch vehicle rideshare, orbit insertion, surface mobility, and flyby operations. When providing services under CLIN 1, the Contractor shall accommodate, transport, and deliver NASA-sponsored payloads to space destinations while using Contractor-provided assets.

Under CLIN 2, NASA may require delivery of a lander to NASA for Government integration of payloads and encapsulation of the lander onto a launch vehicle. After launch, the Contractor may be required to operate the lander after separation with the launch vehicle. Alternatively, the

Contractor may be required to train NASA employees how to perform mission operations. The Contractor shall provide instruction to NASA on how to handle the lander and safely integrate payloads.

Additionally, NASA may issue delivery/task orders that require special services. When providing services under CLIN 3 of this contract, the Contractor may be required to provide services such as feasibility studies, development of hardware/software for NASA Sponsored Payloads, or payloads, as defined in task orders.

The CLPS2 procurement is limited to entities that qualify as United States Commercial Providers as defined in 51 U.S.C. § 50101(7).

II. EVALUATION CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES

Proposals received were evaluated in accordance with the FAR, the NASA FAR Supplement (NFS), and the Request for Proposal (RFP). Pursuant to the CLPS2 RFP's evaluation scheme, NASA may award multiple CLPS2 base contracts to Offerors whose proposals offer the best overall value to the Government that meets all solicitation requirements and is determined responsible in accordance with FAR 9.104, Standards.

Upon receipt of the proposals, the SLPT conducted an initial review of the proposals to determine acceptability. First, in accordance with NFS 1815.108-71, Identification of Unacceptable Proposals, if the Contracting Officer determined an Offeror’s proposal did not represent a reasonable effort to address the essential requirements of the Request for Proposal (RFP), the proposal would be determined to be unacceptable with no further consideration for contract award. Second, in accordance with RFP Section L.16.4, Domestic Source Self Certification, if the Contracting Officer determined an Offeror’s proposal did not include an adequate Domestic Source Self Certification, which certifies the Offeror is a United States Commercial Provider, the proposal would be determined to be unacceptable with no further consideration for contract award.

The remaining proposals were to be evaluated for an adequate response to the RFP’s Technical Acceptability Criteria (Volume I.B). No comparative assessment between or among each Offeror’s proposed CLPS2 solutions would be undertaken and no trade-offs would be made. In accordance with FAR Part 15.104(b)(3), the Contracting Officer determined that past performance is not an appropriate evaluation factor for the CLPS base contract procurement. The technical evaluation framework requires offerors to demonstrate their company’s relevant capabilities and proven experience through one of three Pathways, each of which directly reflects performance history aligned with the unique CLPS2 mission requirements. Additionally, in accordance with FAR 15.104(b)(1)(ii)(A)(2), the Contracting Officer determined it appropriate to exclude cost/price as an evaluation factor at the solicitation stage given the RFP will result in multiple-award contracts that are for the same or similar services. Rather, both Past Performance and Price will be included as evaluation factors at the CLPS2 task order level (where appropriate), and where requirements are defined and competition is directly tied to specific mission needs. This ensures that meaningful, mission specific pricing and past performance information is considered at the point where it is most relevant and provides the greatest evaluative value.

The CLPS2 RFP set three Technical Acceptability (TA) Pathways for evaluating the Offerors' proposals. RFP Section M.1(b) identified three potential ratings for each of the three TA Pathways identified below: "Acceptable," "Potentially Acceptable," or "Unacceptable." A proposal was rated "Potentially Acceptable" in a particular TA Pathway when, after the initial evaluation, the evaluation team concluded that additional information obtained during discussions (if utilized) could result in a proposal rating of "Acceptable."

In accordance with RFP Section L.16.5(b), Technical Proposal Instructions, Offerors were required to clearly specify in their proposal whether they were submitting under Pathway 1, Pathway 2, or Pathway 3 for evaluation. Offerors could only pick one pathway.

Each submission had to include a detailed technical justification demonstrating its company’s specific core competencies in propulsion, avionics, and integration. Proposals that failed to adequately address the specific technical criteria for the Technical Acceptability Factor for an Offeror’s chosen pathway were to be rated as “Unacceptable” and ineligible for award. Activities and missions that have occurred within the last 25 years were eligible for recognition under all three pathways; missions and activities predating this window are ineligible for consideration.

According to the RFP's Technical Acceptability Evaluation criteria, proposals must be rated "Acceptable" to be eligible for contract award. If any element of the evaluation factor is unacceptable then the overall pathway will be determined ”Unacceptable.” If any element of the evaluation factor is potentially acceptable, then the overall pathway will be determined “Potentially Acceptable.”

In accordance with the RFP Section M.2, each Offeror’s chosen TA Pathway was evaluated the extent to which the proposal adequately demonstrated a valid technical approach and the maturity of all core competencies through traceable data. Each proposal was evaluated against criteria defined under Pathways 1, 2, or 3 which cover successful lunar delivery performance, integrated assembly testing of a lander, or a space proven representative mission.

The TA Pathways as set forth in the CLPS RFP were as follows:

Pathway 1: Past Delivery of Success To meet this requirement, the Offeror must demonstrate that they have successfully delivered a robust operational payload to a specified location on the lunar surface.

Pathway 2: Lander Readiness To meet this requirement, the Offeror 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. The Offeror must demonstrate that the lander had been fully assembled (including all spacecraft components) prior to testing, and that the fully assembled lander has successfully completed an acceptance test campaign increasing the likelihood of successful delivery.

Pathway 3: Space Flight Heritage To meet this requirement, the Offeror 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. Secondly, the Offeror must show how this mission or set of missions provides heritage to a potential lunar lander, increasing the likelihood of successful delivery.

Offerors were required to demonstrate that they are presently responsible in accordance with the standards and procedures set forth in FAR Subpart 9.1 and NFS Subpart 1809.1 to be considered for award. Offerors were also required to provide an acceptable Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Avoidance Plan. Additionally, large businesses were required to submit Small Business Subcontracting Plans.

RFP Section L.3 indicated that NASA intended to evaluate proposals and award contract(s) without discussions with Offerors. The RFP stated selection of Offerors for the CLPS2 base contract(s) will be to those Offerors whose proposals offered the best overall value to the Government, meets all solicitation requirements, and is determined responsible in accordance with FAR 9.104, Standards. NASA's intention is to issue competitive Requests for Task Order Proposals for future missions with comparative assessments and trade-offs between the contract holders' technical solutions, price and past performance (where appropriate) in order to acquire the "best value" CLPS solution for a particular NASA payload and mission requirement.

III. EVALUATION RESULTS

Complete and timely proposals were received on June 30, 2026, in response to the RFP from the following fifteen (15) companies:

1. Space Environment Technologies (SET)

2. Northrop Grumman (NG)

3. Astrobotic Technology, Inc. (Astrobotic)

4. Intuitive Machines (IM)

5. ispace-U.S. (ispace)

6. Advanced Space

7. Impulse Space

8. Firefly Aerospace (Firefly)

9. BAE Systems (BAE)

10. SpaceX

11. Lockheed Martin (Lockheed)

12. Orbit Beyond, Inc. (OBI)

13. Rocket Lab USA, Inc. (Rocket Lab)

14. Blue Origin

15. York Space Systems (York)

After an initial review, all of the above companies were determined to be acceptable in accordance with NFS 1815.108-71, Identification of Unacceptable Proposals, and in accordance with RFP Section L.16.4, Domestic Source Self-Certification.

Two additional Offerors, AlphaSpaces and Astroech, also submitted proposals that did not meet NASA’s requirements.

Per NFS 1815.108-71, the proposal submitted by AstroTech was unacceptable and removed from consideration for award due to material items being missing from its proposal. The RFP Sections L.16.1 and L.16.2 instructions require Volume II to be submitted as a separate electronic file, and Volume II was not provided. The proposal did not represent a reasonable initial effort to address the essential requirements of the RFP. The NASA Contracting Officer informed AstroTech of its exclusion from further consideration on July 13, 2026.

Per RFP Section L.16.4, the proposal submitted by AlphaSpaces was unacceptable and removed from consideration for award. The proposal did not provide a completed Volume I.A. – Domestic Source Self-Certification (Attachment J-8), which was required to be completed and signed by a senior executive, confirming compliance with clause H.15 and meeting the definition of a United States Commercial Provider under 51 U.S.C. § 50101. The NASA Contracting Officer informed AlphaSpaces of its exclusion from further consideration on July 13, 2026.

Summary

Of the fifteen (15) proposals determined to be initially acceptable under NFS 1815.108-71, the SLPT determined that eight (8) proposals were "Acceptable," while seven (7) proposals were "Unacceptable" under the TA factor, as detailed further below.

Offeror Pathway Overall Technical Acceptability Evaluation Factor

Ratings 1 SET Pathway 3 Unacceptable 2 NG Pathway 3 Acceptable 3 Astrobotic Pathway 2 Acceptable 4 IM Pathway 1 Acceptable 5 ispace Pathway 2 Acceptable 6 Advanced Space Pathway 3 Unacceptable 7 Impulse Space Pathway 3 Unacceptable 8 Firefly Pathway 1 Acceptable 9 BAE Pathway 3 Unacceptable 10 SpaceX Pathway 3 Acceptable 11 Lockheed Pathway 3 Acceptable 12 OBI Pathway 2 Unacceptable 13 Rocket Lab Pathway 3 Unacceptable 14 Blue Origin Pathway 2 Acceptable 15 York Pathway 3 Unacceptable

Space Environment Technologies

Space Environment Technologies (SET) submitted its proposal under Pathway 3: Space Flight Heritage. Based upon the evaluation, SET’s proposed approach to Pathway 3 was determined to be Unacceptable.

The SET proposal did not adequately establish a valid technical approach for the spacecraft referenced for heritage through traceable data. The technical volume did not adequately demonstrate that the Offeror held the ultimate responsibility for the overall design, system-level integration, and active operational control of the IM-2 spacecraft during the mission. This lack of a valid approach in demonstrated organizational authority in relevant past space flight mission leaves SET’s prime management capabilities unverified, which introduces an unacceptably high risk to the Government regarding involvement in the CLPS2 vendor pool.

Additionally, the proposal did not adequately demonstrate the maturity of all of the offeror’s core competencies in propulsion system fluid and thermal management, control logic, and thrust vectoring through traceable data. This lack of demonstrated maturity in the propulsion core competency introduces an unacceptably high risk to the Government for future delivery task orders. Likewise, the proposal did not adequately demonstrate the maturity of all the Offeror’s core competencies in avionics system power management, autonomous navigation, command and data handling, and fault tolerance through traceable data. This lack of demonstrated maturity in the avionics core competency represents an unacceptably high risk to the Government for future delivery task orders.

Per RFP Section M.1(d), if any element of the evaluation factor is unacceptable, then the overall pathway will be determined unacceptable. Thus, SET’s proposed approach was determined to be Unacceptable.

Northrop Grumman

Northrop Grumman (NG) submitted its proposal under Pathway 3: Space Flight Heritage. Based upon the evaluation, NG’s proposed approach to Pathway 3 was determined to be Acceptable.

The NG proposal adequately established a valid technical approach by demonstrating NG acted as the primary contractor and operator of the Cygnus/CRS2 mission, holding the ultimate responsibility for the overall design, the system-level integration, and the active operational control of the spacecraft during the mission. The Cygnus/CRS2 mission met all requirements in L.16.5(b)(3), including the 24-hour mission lifetime requirement and high-thrust spacecraft producing force greater than 90 lbf. The proposal also provided traceable evidence demonstrating how the Cygnus/CRS2 mission validates the technical maturity of all core competencies (avionics, propulsion, and integration) required for lunar delivery.

Overall, the proposal adequately demonstrated a valid technical approach meeting all requirements in L.16.5(b)(3) and provided traceable evidence showing the technical maturity of all core competencies with a space proven representative mission. Thus, NG’s proposed approach was determined to be Acceptable.

Astrobotic

Astrobotic Technology, Inc. (Astrobotic) submitted its proposal under Pathway 2: Lander Readiness. Based upon the evaluation, Astrobotic’s proposed approach to Pathway 2 was determined to be Acceptable.

The Astrobotic proposal adequately established a valid technical approach by demonstrating Astrobotic acted as the primary contractor and operator of the Peregrine 1 lunar lander, holding the ultimate responsibility for the overall design, the system-level integration, and the conduct of the testing. The Peregrine 1 lunar lander met all requirements in L.16.5(b)(2), including completing an acceptance test campaign that includes structural, thermal vacuum, shock, and electromagnetic compatibility / interference testing. The proposal also provided traceable evidence demonstrating how the Peregrine 1 lunar lander validates the technical maturity of all core competencies (avionics, propulsion, and integration) required for lunar delivery.

Overall, the proposal adequately demonstrated a valid technical approach meeting all requirements in L.16.5(b)(2) and provided traceable evidence showing the technical maturity of all core competencies with an integrated assembly testing of a lander. Thus, Astrobotic’s proposed approach was determined to be Acceptable.

Intuitive Machines

Intuitive Machines (IM) submitted its proposal under Pathway 1: Past Delivery Success. Based upon the evaluation, IM’s proposed approach to Pathway 1 was determined to be Acceptable.

The IM proposal adequately established a valid technical approach by demonstrating IM acted as the primary architect and operator of the IM-1 mission, holding the responsibility for the manifesting, integrating, transportation architecture, thermal protection, power provision, and data relay of the payload(s). The IM-1 mission met all requirements in L.16.5(b)(1), including the successful end-to-end delivery of a robust operational payload of at least 10 kg to a specified location on the lunar surface. The proposal also provided traceable evidence demonstrating how the IM-1 mission validates the technical maturity of all core competencies (avionics, propulsion, and integration) required for lunar delivery.

Overall, the proposal adequately demonstrates a valid technical approach meeting all requirements in L.16.5(b)(1) and provided traceable evidence showing the technical maturity of all core competencies with a successful lunar delivery performance. Thus, IM’s proposed ispace-U.S.

ispace-U.S. (ispace) submitted its proposal under Pathway 2: Lander Readiness. Based upon the evaluation, ispace’s proposed approach to Pathway 2 was determined to be Acceptable.

The ispace proposal adequately established a valid technical approach by demonstrating that ispace acted as the primary contractor and operator of the RESILIENCE lunar lander, holding the ultimate responsibility for the overall design, the system-level integration, and the conduct of the testing. The RESILIENCE lunar lander met all requirements in L.16.5(b)(2), including completing an acceptance test campaign that includes structural, thermal vacuum, shock, and electromagnetic compatibility / interference testing. The proposal also provided traceable evidence demonstrating how the RESILIENCE lunar lander validates the technical maturity of all core competencies (avionics, propulsion, and integration) required for lunar delivery.

Overall, the proposal adequately demonstrated a valid technical approach meeting all requirements in L.16.5(b)(2) and provided traceable evidence showing the technical maturity of all core competencies with an integrated assembly testing of a lander. Thus, ispace’s proposed

Advanced Space

Advanced Space submitted its proposal under Pathway 3: Space Flight Heritage. Based upon the evaluation, Advanced Space’s proposed approach to Pathway 3 was determined to be Unacceptable.

The Advanced Space proposal did not adequately establish a valid technical approach for the spacecraft referenced for heritage through traceable data. The technical volume did not adequately demonstrate that the Advanced Space held the ultimate responsibility for the overall build and system-level integration of the Escape and Plasma Acceleration and Dynamics Explorers (ESCAPADE) spacecraft. This lack of a valid approach in demonstrated organizational authority in the space flight mission cited for heritage leaves Advanced Space's prime management capabilities unverified, which introduces an unacceptably high risk to the Government regarding involvement in the CLPS2 vendor pool.

Additionally, the proposal did not adequately demonstrate the maturity of all Advanced Space’s core competencies in propulsion system fluid and thermal management, control logic, and thrust vectoring through traceable data. This lack of demonstrated maturity in the propulsion core competency introduces an unacceptably high risk to the Government for future delivery task orders.

Per RFP Section M.1(d), if any element of the evaluation factor is unacceptable, then the overall pathway will be determined unacceptable. Thus, Advanced Space’s proposed approach was determined to be Unacceptable.

Impulse Space

Impulse Space submitted its proposal under Pathway 3: Space Flight Heritage. Based upon the evaluation, Impulse Space’s proposed approach to Pathway 3 was determined to be

The Impulse Space proposal demonstrated that Impulse Space acted as the primary contractor and operator of the Mira space vehicle. The proposal also provided traceable evidence demonstrating how the Mira LEO Express 1, 2, and 3 missions validate the technical maturity of the avionics and integration core competencies. However, the proposal did not adequately demonstrate maturity in all the propulsion core competencies through traceable data. The proposal did not establish that the referenced heritage architecture met the single-mission thrust threshold of having “designed, integrated, built, and operated a high-thrust spacecraft in space” with at least one engine capable of producing thrust greater than 90 lbf. This lack of demonstrated maturity in the propulsion core competency introduces an unacceptably high risk to the Government for future successful lunar delivery and does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

Per RFP Section M.1(d), if any element of the evaluation factor is unacceptable, then the overall pathway will be determined unacceptable. Thus, Impulse Space’s proposed approach was

Firefly Aerospace

Firefly Aerospace (Firefly) submitted its proposal under Pathway 1: Past Delivery Success.

Based upon the evaluation, Firefly’s proposed approach to Pathway 1 was determined to be Acceptable.

The Firefly proposal adequately established a valid technical approach by demonstrating Firefly acted as the primary architect and operator of the BGM1 mission, holding the responsibility for the manifesting, integrating, transportation architecture, thermal protection, power provision, and data relay of the payload(s). The BGM1 mission met all requirements in L.16.5(b)(1), including the successful end-to-end delivery of a robust operational payload of at least 10 kg to a specified location on the lunar surface. The proposal also provided traceable evidence demonstrating how the BGM1 mission validates the technical maturity of all core competencies (avionics, propulsion, and integration) required for lunar delivery.

Overall, the proposal adequately demonstrates a valid technical approach meeting all requirements in L.16.5(b)(1) and provided traceable evidence showing the technical maturity of all core competencies with a successful lunar delivery performance. Thus, Firefly’s proposed

BAE Systems

BAE Systems (BAE) submitted its proposal under Pathway 3: Space Flight Heritage. Based upon the evaluation, BAE’s proposed approach to Pathway 3 was determined to be Unacceptable.

The BAE proposal demonstrated that BAE acted as the primary contractor and operator of the Deep Impact and Kepler space vehicles. The proposal also provided traceable evidence demonstrating how the Deep Impact and Kepler missions validate the technical maturity of the avionics and integration core competencies. However, the proposal did not adequately demonstrate the maturity in all the propulsion core competencies through traceable data. The proposal did not demonstrate that the Offeror had designed, integrated, built, and operated a "high thrust" spacecraft having at least one engine capable of producing a force greater than 90 lbf. This lack of demonstrated maturity in the propulsion core competency introduces an unacceptably high risk to the Government for future successful lunar delivery and does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

Per RFP Section M.1(d), if any element of the evaluation factor is unacceptable, then the overall pathway will be determined unacceptable. Thus, BAE’s proposed approach was determined to be

SpaceX

SpaceX submitted its proposal under Pathway 3: Space Flight Heritage. Based upon the evaluation, SpaceX’s proposed approach to Pathway 3 was determined to be Acceptable.

The SpaceX proposal adequately established a valid technical approach by demonstrating SpaceX acted as the primary contractor and operator of the Dragon 2 mission, holding the ultimate responsibility for the overall design, the system-level integration, and the active operational control of the spacecraft during the mission. The Dragon 2 mission met all requirements in L.16.5(b)(3), including the 24-hour mission lifetime requirement and high-thrust spacecraft producing a force greater than 90 lbf. The proposal also provided traceable evidence demonstrating how the Dragon 2 mission validates the technical maturity of all core competencies (avionics, propulsion, and integration) required for lunar delivery.

Overall, the proposal adequately demonstrated a valid technical approach meeting all requirements in L.16.5(b)(3) and provided traceable evidence showing the technical maturity of all core competencies with a space proven representative mission. Thus, SpaceX’s proposed

Lockheed Martin

Lockheed Martin (Lockheed) submitted its proposal under Pathway 3: Space Flight Heritage.

Based upon the evaluation, Lockheed’s proposed approach to Pathway 3 was determined to be Acceptable.

The Lockheed proposal adequately established a valid technical approach by demonstrating Lockheed acted as the primary contractor and operator of the Lucy and Insight missions, holding the ultimate responsibility for the overall design, the system-level integration, and the active operational control of the spacecraft during the mission. The Lucy and Insight missions met all requirements in L.16.5(b)(3), including the 24-hour mission lifetime requirement and high-thrust spacecraft producing a force greater than 90 lbf. The proposal also provided traceable evidence demonstrating how the Lucy and Insight missions validate the technical maturity of all core competencies (avionics, propulsion, and integration) required for lunar delivery.

Overall, the proposal adequately demonstrated a valid technical approach meeting all requirements in L.16.5(b)(3) and provided traceable evidence showing the technical maturity of all core competencies with a space proven representative mission. Thus, Lockheed’s proposed

Orbit Beyond, Inc.

Orbit Beyond, Inc. (OBI) submitted its proposal under Pathway 2: Lander Readiness. Based upon the evaluation, OBI’s proposed approach to Pathway 2 was determined to be Unacceptable.

The OBI proposal did not adequately establish a valid technical approach toward testing a fully assembled lunar lander through traceable data. The proposal states that "OBI has not yet completed the integrated acceptance campaign on a fully assembled OB-1 flight vehicle." The lack of a demonstrated, valid approach for integration, build, and testing of the OB-1 lunar lander introduces an unacceptably high risk to the Government regarding future spacecraft development and lunar deliveries.

Per RFP Section M.1(d), if any element of the evaluation factor is unacceptable, then the overall pathway will be determined unacceptable. Thus, OBI’s proposed approach was determined to be

Rocket Lab USA, Inc.

Rocket Lab USA, Inc. (Rocket Lab) submitted its proposal under Pathway 3: Space Flight Heritage. Based upon the evaluation, Rocket Lab’s proposed approach to Pathway 3 was determined to be Unacceptable.

The Rocket Lab proposal demonstrated that Rocket Lab acted as the primary contractor and operator of the Escape and Plasma Acceleration and Dynamics Explorers (ESCAPADE) mission.

The proposal provided traceable evidence demonstrating that the mission met the 24-hour mission lifetime requirement as well as demonstrating that the ESCAPADE mission was a high-thrust spacecraft with at least one engine capable of generating greater than 90 lbf. The proposal also provided traceable evidence demonstrating how the ESCAPADE mission validates the technical maturity of all core competencies (avionics, propulsion, and integration) required for lunar delivery. However, the proposal did not include adequately detailed mission descriptions for the ESCAPADE mission, including lacking information on the overall mission design and operational approach. This lack of an adequately demonstrated, valid approach introduces an unacceptably high risk to the government for future delivery task orders and does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

Per RFP Section M.1(d), if any element of the evaluation factor is unacceptable then the overall pathway will be determined unacceptable. Thus, Rocket Lab’s proposed approach was

Blue Origin

Blue Origin submitted its proposal under Pathway 2: Lander Readiness. Based upon the evaluation, Blue Origin’s proposed approach to Pathway 2 was determined to be Acceptable.

The Blue Origin proposal adequately established a valid technical approach by demonstrating Blue Origin acted as the primary contractor and operator of the Mk1 Endurance lunar lander, holding the ultimate responsibility for the overall design, the system-level integration, and the conduct of the testing. The Mk1 Endurance lunar lander met all requirements in L.16.5(b)(2), including completing an acceptance test campaign that includes structural, thermal vacuum, shock, and electromagnetic compatibility/interference testing. The proposal also provided traceable evidence demonstrating how the Mk1 Endurance lunar lander validates the technical maturity of all core competencies (avionics, propulsion, and integration) required for lunar delivery.

Overall, the proposal adequately demonstrated a valid technical approach meeting all requirements in L.16.5(b)(2) and provided traceable evidence showing the technical maturity of all core competencies with an integrated assembly testing of a lander. Thus, Blue Origin’s proposed approach was determined to be Acceptable.

York Space Systems

York Space Systems (York) submitted its proposal under Pathway 3: Space Flight Heritage.

Based upon the evaluation, York’s proposed approach to Pathway 3 was determined to be Unacceptable.

The York proposal demonstrated that York acted as the primary contractor and operator of the T0TL space vehicle. The proposal also provided traceable evidence demonstrating how the T0TL mission met the 24-hour mission lifetime requirement. However, the proposal did not adequately demonstrate maturity in all the propulsion core competencies through traceable data.

The proposal did not establish that the referenced heritage architecture met the single-mission thrust threshold of having “designed, integrated, built, and operated a high-thrust spacecraft in space” with at least one engine capable of producing thrust greater than 90 lbf. This lack of demonstrated maturity in the propulsion core competency introduces an unacceptably high risk to the Government for future successful lunar delivery.

Additionally, the proposal did not adequately demonstrate the maturity of all York’s core competencies in propulsion system fluid and thermal management, control logic, and thrust vectoring through traceable data. This lack of demonstrated maturity in the propulsion core competency introduces an unacceptably high risk to the Government for future delivery task orders. Next, York’s proposal did not adequately demonstrate the maturity of all York’s core competencies in avionics system power management, autonomous navigation, command and data handling, and fault tolerance through traceable data. This lack of demonstrated maturity in the avionics core competency represents an unacceptably high risk to the Government for future delivery task orders.

Finally, the proposal did not adequately demonstrate a valid technical approach for the proposed relevant missions to satisfy the Pathway 3 criteria through traceable data. The proposal did not include adequately detailed mission descriptions for the missions described, including lacking information on the overall mission design and operational approach. This lack of an adequately demonstrated valid approach introduces an unacceptably high risk to the government for future delivery task orders.

Per RFP Section M.1(d), if any element of the evaluation factor is unacceptable then the overall pathway will be determined unacceptable. Thus, York’s proposed approach was determined to be Unacceptable.

IV. AWARD WITHOUT DISCUSSIONS

As provided in FAR 52.212-1(d), “Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Products and Commercial Services”, which is included in L.3 of the RFP, the Government intends to evaluate offers and award a contract without discussions with Offerors. Therefore, the Offeror’s initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms. Paragraph M.1(c), Streamlined Procurement Evaluation Factors for Award, of the RFP stated, “[t]he Government may elect to award a contract without discussions/negotiations to the technically “Acceptable” responsible offeror(s), who represents the best value…”

The Contracting Officer determined that discussions were not necessary for this procurement.

After careful consideration of the SLPT presentation, feedback provided to me by the advisors and my independent assessment of the proposal evaluation based on the evaluation factors in the solicitation, I concurred in the Contracting Officer determination that discussions were not warranted. The proposals submitted will allow for award of CLPS2 contracts to the responsible Offerors whose initial proposals represent the best value to the Government.

V. SELECTION DECISION

To start, I note that the CLPS2 RFP mandates that the solicitation remain active during the life of the contract and anticipates that the Agency may make additional awards through an "on-ramp" process as early as calendar year 2027. As such, it is entirely conceivable that with the help of comprehensive feedback from NASA during the debriefing process and additional proposal preparation efforts, those not selected for award now may very well be able to remedy the areas of its proposed CLPS solution presently deemed not credible or adequate in a manner that could render them eligible for award of a CLPS base contract during future on-ramp opportunities.

During the meetings on August 11 and August 31, the evaluation findings and the rationale for the SLPT’s conclusions for each Offeror's proposal were discussed, including each Offeror's assessment under the applicable Technical Acceptability Pathway. The findings that the SLPT developed and presented to me were detailed and consistent with the evaluation criteria in the CLPS2 RFP. I questioned the SLPT with regard to key aspects of its evaluation methodology under each of the Pathways, as well as the SLPT’s basis for these findings and its rationale for its overall technical acceptability ratings for all fifteen (15) Offerors. I did so in order to be certain I fully understood this rationale and the underlying qualitative aspects of the Offerors' proposals that generated the SLPT's findings. I then used this information to determine how each Offeror's proposed CLPS2 solution would be advantageous to the Government as a potential CLPS2 provider on future task orders.

I concurred with the SLPT for each of the Offeror's respective findings under the applicable Technical Acceptability Pathway, as well as the basis for the SLPT's assignment of the appropriate technical acceptability ratings for each Offeror under the applicable Pathway. As such, I determined that the SLPT's evaluation record, its findings, and its overall ratings for all fifteen (15) Offerors had a rational basis and were valid for the purpose of making a selection decision.

In light of NASA’s numerous different payload delivery needs, I consider it to be in the Agency’s best interests to award CLPS2 contracts to the eight (8) firms which were rated Acceptable under the TA Factor. This will enhance competition to conduct a wide range of scientific, exploration, and technology development activities while supporting NASA’s mission to create a sustained presence on the lunar surface.

Thus, I select for award the following firms for CLPS2 base contracts:

• Astrobotic

• Blue Origin

• Firefly Aerospace

• Intuitive Machines

• ispace

• Lockheed Martin

• Northrop Grumman

• SpaceX

Ryan Stephan

Director of Cargo Landers in NASA’s Moon Base Program