Draft RFP Industry Q and A Part 2.pdf

CLDC Draft RFP Industry Questions and Answers - Round 2 Posted September 14, 2026

THEME: BUSINESS & COMMERCIALIZATION PLAN

1. Attachment L-07 Corporate Contribution Worksheet will be "evaluated". How will the Agency evaluate the corporate contribution for reasonableness, realism to avoid overly optimistic and unsupportable market estimates? If it cannot be evaluated against a standard, expectation, independent estimate or requirement; this is highly subjective area for evaluation. Are unrealistic contribution estimates (defined as variance between Agency independent estimate and Offeror worksheet L-07) grounds for disqualification?

In accordance with M.4.2 MANAGEMENT APPROACH (MA.2) - MISSION SUITABILITY SUBFACTOR 2, NASA will evaluate the overall impact and risk to the Government as it relates to the demonstrated understanding, completeness, reasonableness and feasibility of each proposed Management Approach, MA.1 through MA.4. In addition, NASA plans to update MA.2 Commercialization and Business Approach to state “Business models that demonstrate a viable, profitable, and free-cash-flow positive approach during the life of the station, backed by strong, quantifiable non-NASA financial and commercial commitments, including private capital and credible customer-backed commitments such as contracts, deposits, purchase commitments, or letters of intent, may be evaluated more favorably if determined to be advantageous to the government.” Attachment L- 07 Business Case Analysis Template (which NASA plans to update to include the Corporate Contribution Worksheet) will be used in conjunction with DRD CLDC-002 Commercialization Plan to evaluate the Offeror's business plan and commercialization strategy.

2. DRD CLDC-002 Commercialization Plan - Please clarify whether previously incurred corporate investments (e.g., NRE, prototype development, facilities, long-lead investments) may be credited toward the Corporate Contribution Worksheet, or whether NASA expects only future post-award corporate investment.

NASA plans to update the Final RFP to reflect that the Corporate Contribution Worksheet allows previously incurred corporate investments, but contributions shall have a direct relationship with the CLD which is being certified for NASA’s use. The offeror is required to explain the relationship in their proposal.

3. DRD CLDC-002 Commercialization Plan - CLDC-002's stated purpose is to confirm the Contractor's financial health and that its plan is "reasonable and … in line with the proposed mission cost," with NASA "one of many customers." Several Contents items exceed that intent and are inappropriate for a firm-fixed-price contract.

3a. We recommend the financial-reporting elements be met through Section (1) an owner/parent financial-ability attestation and;

An owner financial attestation and Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) status are insufficient because NASA must evaluate the direct correlation between the Revenue Generation Forecast and the contractor's fundraising and financial goals to fully understand NASA’s risk posture. The Commercialization Plan is designed to provide the details necessary to ensure the contractor's overall financial health and business plan are reasonable and in line with their business costs.

3b. Section (2) IMS/milestone status, rather than certified financials, staffing plan-vs-actuals, or cost-variance reporting: 2d (Staffing plan vs. actuals by skill mix / CLIN): On FFP, performance is measured by milestone completion, not headcount conformance. Remove plan-vs-actuals; at most, total headcount by major system.

NASA plans to update the DRD to remove staffing to be mapped by CLIN and requests it to be submitted by milestone or major system, and to only require a summary-level staffing plan mapped to "each major system or milestone." To reduce burden, NASA plans to update the DRD to define "Summary level" as requiring only the total allocated headcount, without requiring specific identification at the subcontractor or partner level.

3c. Section (3) (Monthly/cum performance-to-plan): Cost/EVMS-type tracking inappropriate for FFP. Satisfy via IMS/milestone status.

While NASA recognizes standard Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) practices, the unique nature of the CLD as this procurement highly depends on outside investment and commercial business case assumptions for success and therefore, NASArequires insight into the contractor’s commercial viability and non-NASA revenue generation beyond technical milestone completion. The DRD is not intended to address Earned Value Management (EVM), and defines performance-to-plan and variance analysis specifically as tracking "supplier and investor commitments, contracts, revenue, investments, financing, expenditures, and obligations" against the overall commercial segment business plan.

3d.-Section(4) (Variance analysis, planned vs. actual): Cost/schedule variance is a cost-type artifact. Satisfy via IMS schedule status.

While the contractor's forecasted plan and variance recovery plans must map to and explain alignment with the IMS, the IMS schedule status alone cannot satisfy NASA's need to monitor actual commercial revenue, investment, and financial obligations. The narrative variance analysis is required in order to explain major contributors to deviations in these business and financial metrics.

4. We request that NASA accept the L-07 Corporate Contribution Worksheet submitted on a fully-burdened basis so the contribution value NASA scores is captured without exposing indirect rates.

NASA plans to update the Corporate Contribution Worksheet to remove Overhead and G&A to allow for each line item to be submitted as fully burdened.

5. DRD CLDC-002 Commercialization Plan - What specific NASA decisions will be informed by recurring quarterly reporting and Commercialization Plan reporting related to business planning? Other agencies and clients are confidential in nature.

Ask: NASA should limit commercialization reporting to high-level market indicators and remove requirements for disclosing confidential customer information to preserve client confidentiality.

NASA understands the concerns about disclosing confidential customer information and plans to make updates in the final RFP to address these concerns in 3 areas. The DRD will be updated to clarify that NASA will protect the submitted data as "confidential financial information" to address the exposure of private capital strategies, ownership structures, and financial due diligence. NASA also plans to update reporting on Business Development progress—that the contractor "may omit customer identities or contract terms." And finally, to protect proprietary partner workforce data, the DRD will be updated to only require summary-level staffing plan.

6. DRD CLDC-002 Commercialization Plan - Why does NASA require quarterly certified financial statements, capital expenditure plans, and performance-to-plan information, for a Firm Fixed Price commercial services acquisition, what is the commercial rationale?

Ask: NASA should eliminate quarterly certified financial statement requirements for FFP contracts and instead rely on milestone completion as the primary indicator and annual discussions on overall financial reporting.

The purpose of the Commercialization Plan is to better understand the contractor’s overall financial health and business plan since the success of this acquisition reliess in substantial part on industry’s ability to obtain investments. To fully understand its risk posture, NASA needs to understand the correlation between the contractor's Revenue Generation Forecast and their fundraising or financial goals. Regular visibility into capital expenditure plans, liquidity runway (including available cash and undrawn capital), and monthly burn rate is essential to ensure the contractor maintains the financial capacity to execute the contract. Additionally, NASA plans to update the certified financial statements to allow for “Officer certified” financial statements. An “Officer Certified” is not expected to be an independent entity but can be someone with the company with this role.

7. DRD CLDC-002 Commercialization Plan - Why does NASA require staffing plan versus actual reporting by discipline, skill mix, major system, and CLIN, and how will this information be used, what is the commercial rationale?

Ask: Recommend removal of staffing plan reporting by discipline and CLIN, focusing instead on demonstrated capability to meet contractual milestones.

Staffing plans by quantity, discipline, and skill mix mapped to major systems or milestones allow NASA to identify early warning signs of resource constraints or misalignments, and relying exclusively on milestone completion provides only lagging indicators of performance. Because labor is a primary driver of capital expenditure, understanding staffing actuals against the plan is essential for NASA to validate the contractor's reported liquidity runway and monthly burn rate. NASA also update DRD CLDC-002 to allow for Summary Level Staffing, which does not require subcontractor breakouts.

8. DRD CLDC-002 Commercialization Plan - Has NASA assessed whether the proposed reporting requirements could create concerns for investors, lenders, sovereign customers, or strategic partners considering participation in commercial LEO infrastructure?

Ask: NASA should conduct an impact assessment of reporting requirements on commercial investment and revise provisions that could discourage private capital participation.

NASA understands the concerns about private capital participation and plans to make updates in the final RFP to address these concerns in 3 areas. The DRD will be updated to clarify that NASA will protect the submitted data as "confidential financial information" to address the exposure of private capital strategies, ownership structures, and financial due diligence. NASA also plans to update reporting on Business Development progress—that the contractor "may omit customer identities or contract terms." And finally, to protect proprietary partner workforce data, the DRD will be updated to only require summary-level staffing plan.

9. For the Attachment L-07 Corporate Contribution Worksheet:

NASA plans to update the final RFP to include the Corporate Contribution Worksheet with the Business Case Analysis Template as Attachment L-07. This worksheet is expected to be used to establish the prior, current and projected contractor investments to understand the financial contributions being made by the contractor.

9a. Ask: (1) What documentation standard applies to fair-market-value claims (e.g., facilities/equipment usage)?

Fair Market Value is establishing the worth of the facilities or equipment in today’s market

9b. (2) What is the basis for the 50% applicability factor on completed IR&D?

The 50% is an example. The percentage is to show how much of the effort contributes towards the CLDS scope.

Offerors must complete the percentage factor appropriate for their proposed approach.

9c. (3) Is contribution evaluated as a ratio to overall effort or as absolute dollars?

NASA plans to evaluate the Calculated Corporation Contribution % of the overall total effort.

10. Under DRFP L.17.5(e), Financial Capability Disclosure Information - The disclosure includes loan covenants, term sheets, and parent guarantees.

10a. Ask: (1) Please confirm how this information is protected within the SEB?

NASA plans to update the DRD to clarify that NASA will protect the submitted data as "confidential financial information" to the extent permitted by law.

10b. (2) Is it exempt from public release To the extent permitted by law, NASA will protect and not release confidential financial information.

10c. (3) Will it be firewalled from NASA personnel supporting other CLD contractors?

NASA will protect and limit access to confidential financial information to need-to-know personnel only, and ensure access to sensitive information clauses are implemented if contractor personnel are required to review the data.

11. DRD CLDC-002 Commercialization Plan - Quarterly briefings will contain confidential commercial and financial information.

11a. Ask: Please confirm the protection regime: treatment as confidential commercial/financial information, exemption from release, and firewalls from NASA personnel supporting other CLD contractors' insight activities.

Quarterly briefings may include business splinters or breakout sessions when including confidential financial information so that data is shared with only the appropriate personnel. Additionally, NASA plans to update the DRD to clarify that NASA will protect the submitted data as "confidential financial information" to the extent permitted by law.

11b. For the Attachment L-07 Corporate Contribution Worksheet - Re: Feedback item (a). On the pricing structure (Schedule B, all CLINs) and the Corporate Contribution Worksheet (Attachment L-07): because corporate contribution is measured across the pre-revenue development-and-certification phase (through CLIN 2), the timing of when it must be committed is decisive for emerging providers. We recommendthat contribution be permitted to be committed and demonstrated progressively against development milestones (e.g., Preliminary Design Review, Critical Design Review) rather than proven as a large up-front threshold at proposal submission - so that providers who fund their share as they raise capital and retire risk are not excluded for reasons of timing rather than capability. We also recommend the RFP clarify whether corporate contribution is a scored evaluation factor or is collected for information only, and if scored, at what relative weight, so offerors can respond appropriately. Either way, the Government's cost-share and taxpayer-value objectives are preserved while keeping the CLIN 1 competition open to well-designed emerging providers.

The Corporate Contribution Worksheet will be evaluated under Mission Suitability Factor 2, M.4.2 Management Approach, MA.2 Commercialization and Business Approach as stated in the final RFP. The purpose is for the Government to understand how the offeror will cover the delta costs not provided by the Government.

12. DRD CLDC-002 Commercialization Plan requires the Contractor to submit, quarterly for the life of the contract, certified financial statements, a 24-month liquidity/burn outlook, fundraising and ownership detail, and a 10-year non-NASA revenue forecast by probability tier. Provider viability is a legitimate — indeed central — Government concern here; the issue is that this deliverable is the wrong instrument for it. Every interest it serves is already met at selection, through Attachments L-08 (Business Case Analysis) and L-07 (Corporate Contribution Worksheet), evaluated under Mission Suitability factor MA.2, atop the FAR 9.104-1(a) financial responsibility determination. Post-award, the quarterly resubmission adds no protection NASA can act on: as Data Type 3 it does not require formal NASA review and approval, and under a firm-fixed-price contract it carries no remedy. NASA's real protections against provider failure are structural — payment only for delivered milestones, and the IDIQ's multi-award and on-ramp architecture. A forecast prevents no failure; deleting it removes no remedy NASA holds today. NASA's precedent confirms this: CCtCap took financial statements as proposal-phase responsibility information and levied no post-award financial deliverable, and neither HLS appendix has an analogue. The deliverable also imposes affirmative harm the alternatives avoid — compelling quarterly disclosure of the Contractor's most competitively sensitive forward strategy (non-NASA pipeline, investor negotiations, ownership) into Government hands, in the same contract whose Section H Most-Favored- Pricing posture reaches the very commercial pricing this data reveals. That chills the third-party deal-making the CLD business model depends on and is inconsistent with the DRD's own premise that NASA is interested in being one of many customers. Recommendation: Delete DRD CLDC-002; the proposal-phase interest is fully served by L-07 and L-08. If any residual post-award signal is required, it can be met by annual audited financials plus prompt notification of a material adverse change — not a standing quarterly deliverable.

NASA has evaluated what financial information is required to evaluate the initial and ongoing financial health and viability of the Contractor based on lessons learned from other similar services contracts. NASA’s need to fully understand its risk posture extends beyond source selection. The agency must actively monitor the correlation between the contractor's Revenue Generation Forecast and their fundraising and financial goals. as this procurement highly depends on outside investment and commercial business case assumptions for success. Therefore, DRD CLDC-002 will be retained with minor updates.

13. DRD CLDC-002 Commercialization Plan - Please confirm that deal-level pricing and agreement data submitted under Item 12:

13a. (i) will be delivered via a Contracting Officer–only channel rather than general repository distribution;

NASA intends to update the DRD to clarify that NASA will protect the submitted data as "confidential financial information" to the extent permitted by law. NASA plans to maintain a general repository for DRDs but will ensure there are access limitations to ensure specific DRDs, such as DRD CLDC-002 are protected and only accessed by need-to-know personnel.

13b. (ii) will be honored as limited rights data under FAR 52.227-14 (Deviated) (p. 115) when so marked per J-02 §3.4;

Unless the data are required to be delivered with additional rights under the data rights clauses in the contract (e.g., I.9, I.10, and H.29), all data associated with DRDs are expected to be delivered with a minimum of Limited Rights.

13c. (iii) will be handled under NFS 1852.237-72/-73 (p. 107), with support-contractor access controlled through NDAs and OCI screening (Mitigation of OCIs, p. 67; NFS 1852.209-71, p. 90); and NASA subcontractor agreements will have OCI provisions and access to sensitive information clauses which safeguard other Contractor data.

13d. (iv) will be treated as confidential commercial/financial information withheld from FOIA release under Exemption 4.

Data that is commercial/financial data is withheld from FOIA releases to extent allowed by law, and any FOIA releases will be coordinated with the relevant Contractor as outlined under 14 CFR Part 1206 Subpart F.

13e. (v) The "CDO Program Authorized Repository" should be struck from the distribution method?

NASA plans to maintain a general repository for DRDs but will ensure there are access limitations to ensure specific DRDs, such as DRD CLDC-002 are protected in accordance with standard procedures and only accessed by need-to-know personnel.

13f. (vi) NASA provided a competition-sensitive direct-transmission accommodation in DRD CLDC-115 (p. 122 of 246); will NASA provide an analogous accommodation for CLDC-002 customer data? In a multi-award environment, customer-level pricing is among the most competitively sensitive data a contractor holds. Defined access controls are a precondition to meaningful reporting.

NASA plans to update the DRD to clarify that NASA will protect the submitted data as "confidential financial information" to the extent permitted by law. NASA plans to maintain a general repository for DRDs but will ensure there are access limitations to ensure specific DRDs, such as DRD CLDC-002 are protected and only accessed by need-to-know personnel.

14. DRD CLDC-002 Commercialization Plan - Please define “Certified” as applied to quarterly balance sheets, income and cash flow statements, and changes in equity (officer certification vs. independent auditor review vs.

audit), and the required accounting basis. Recommend that officer-certified quarterly statements plus an annual audited report — consistent with the Volume IV Financial Capability Disclosure — be sufficient to satisfy this requirement. Quarterly independent audits are atypical even for public companies and would add material recurring cost that flows directly into the price paid by NASA.

NASA intends to update DRD CLDC-002 in the final RFP to define Certified as "Officer Certified."An “Officer Certified” is not expected to be an independent entity but can be someone with the company with this role.

15. DRD CLDC-002 Commercialization Plan - Recommend that sources of planned debt and equity and levels of commitment be reported by category and amount, without naming counterparties where confidentiality obligations apply (with names available to the Contracting Officer upon request). Term sheets and side letters routinely carry confidentiality obligations.

To safeguard term sheets and side letters, the DRD mandates that NASA protect all submitted data as "confidential financial information” with access strictly limited to the Contracting Officer, Contracting Officer Representative, and need-to-know personnel. The contractor has the latitude to submit the information as they see fit, as long as they meet the intent of the requirements.

16. DRD CLDC-002 Commercialization Plan - Please clarify what granularity is required for “Company Ownership Structure” (e.g., holders above a defined threshold vs. a complete capitalization table). Is the reporting entity the contracting entity or the consolidated parent? Undefined scope will produce inconsistent submissions across offerors NASA plans to update DRD-CLDC-002 to clarify company ownership. Company Ownership Structure includes parent company ownership above the contracting entity.

17. DRD CLDC-002 Commercialization Plan - Please clarify what level of granularity is required for the staffing plan

vs. actuals “by quantity and discipline/skill mix mapped to each major system and CLIN,” and whether subcontractor personnel are included. Recommend that summary-level staffing by discipline satisfy the requirement on this firm-fixed-price contract.

NASA plans to update DRD-CLDC-002 to clarify that the staffing plan can be submitted at a summary level, not requiring subcontractor or partner level specific identification within the plan but requires the total allocated headcount.

18. DRD CLDC-002 Commercialization Plan - For the liquidity runway and 24-month outlook, please confirm that committed-but-undrawn capital (e.g., executed equity commitments and undrawn credit facilities) counts toward available liquidity. Excluding committed capital would materially understate runway for venture-funded contractors and could distort NASA’s financial-health assessment.

NASA plans to update DRD-CLDC-002 to clarify that committed but undrawn capital counts toward available liquidity.

19. DRD CLDC-002 Commercialization Plan - Please provide definitions for “secured, probable and at risk/speculative” revenue. Please confirm that the 10-year revenue forecast and performance-to-plan submissions are planning data under Data Type 3 (information-only; no NASA approval of the Contractor’s business plan), and confirm a re-baselining mechanism so that commercial strategy changes are processed as plan updates rather than accumulating quarterly variances.

NASA does not intend to re-baseline the Commercial Strategy Plan and requires reporting on variances to plan.

In the context of this question Secured means signed agreements; Probable means in negotiations; and At Risk/Speculative means in discussions or researching.

20. DRD CLDC-002 Commercialization Plan - The Description states the plan describes the Contractor’s approach, “if any,” to commercial partnerships (p. 13), while the Contents are mandatory (pp. 13–14). Please confirm required content scales to the Contractor’s actual commercial activity, and that Item 10 status reporting on “signed contracts, Letters of intent, etc.” is status-level and does not require delivery of the underlying agreements. This aligns the DRD’s mandatory contents with its stated scope and avoids over-collection of highly sensitive third-party agreement documents.

The contents of the DRD are mandatory if the Contractor is relying on a Commercialization Plan and Strategy to create commercial revenue to sustain their business case. The content should align with the actual commercial activities. The DRD does not require a full submission of the signed agreements but does requires information at a summary level with enough detail for NASA to perform an educated review. NASA also plans to update the DRD to allow for omission of customer identities and contract terms and conditions.

21. DRD CLDC-002 Commercialization Plan - Please confirm that the quarterly “American Taxpayer reporting” briefed at the Quarterly Program Review is summary / compliance-status level only, with customer- and agreement-level detail restricted to the Contracting Officer channel. QPR briefing packages circulate to program management and support personnel; deal-level customer pricing should not give the sensitivity.

The American Taxpayer Reporting may be briefed as a separate business splinter to ensure the data submitted is only provided to NASA personnel with a need to know.

22. DRFP Section L.17.3.2 MA.2 - COMMENT: The instruction asks offerors to describe how they will capture and retain non-NASA customers, but it does not address whether the commercial model may include independent mission operators, customer representatives, brokers, integrators, or other customer-acquisition and mission-management channels. Requiring each destination provider to own the entire customer relationship could narrow market access and reinforce closed, vertically integrated service models. RECOMMENDED CLARIFICATION: Add a requirement for the offeror to describe its planned customer-access and delivery channels, including any approach for working with qualified third-party mission operators or customer-designated representatives, and how those interfaces will preserve Contractor accountability, safety, security, and proprietary-data protections.

Offerors are not precluded from working with subcontractors, independent mission operators, customer representatives, brokers, integrators, or other customer-acquisition and mission-management channels. Prime Contractors shall still be responsible for all contract requirements, deliverables and maintain responsibility for the Destination if they choose to allow independent or third-party operators to maintain or operate the Destination. The Offerors shall be required to describe those relationships and roles and responsibilities.

Furthermore, NASA plans to update the Commercialization and Business Approach (Section L.17.3.2 MA.2) to include information related to third-party mission operators who perform or support mission operations on the CLD. The Proposal is also expected to include details on how that service model works and how those interfaces will preserve Contractor accountability, operational safety, overall security, and proprietary-data protections, as defined in the RFP.

23. DRFP M.4.2, MA.2 Commercialization and Business Approach - COMMENT: The draft states that business models backed by a strong, quantifiable non-NASA financial commitment “(private capital)” may be evaluated more favorably. Private capital is important, but the most direct evidence of a developing commercial market may be customer commitments, including executed contracts, deposits, purchase commitments, letters of intent, or other revenue-backed commitments. Restricting the favorable consideration to private capital may undervalue demonstrated customer demand. RECOMMENDED REVISION: Replace “non-NASA financial commitment (private capital)” with “non-NASA financial and commercial commitments, including private capital and credible customer-backed commitments such as contracts, deposits, purchase commitments, or letters of intent.”

NASA intends to update the RFP to include the recommended language with slight deviations: “Approaches that provide business models that demonstrate viable, profitable, and free-cash-flow positive during the life of the station, backed by a strong, quantifiable Non-NASA financial and commercial commitments, including private capital and credible customer-backed commitments such as contracts, deposits, purchase commitments or letters of intent may be evaluated more favorably if it is determined to be advantageous to the government."

24. DRD CLDC-002 Commercialization Plan - COMMENT: The Commercialization Plan requires reporting of products and services, business-development progress, partners, and agreements with sovereign nations and third parties. The plan does not expressly require the Contractor to explain how customers may access services through independent customer-side organizations or how those organizations will interface with the Contractor.

RECOMMENDED ADDITION: Require the Commercialization Plan to describe the Contractor’s customer-access and service-delivery model, including direct sales and any qualified third-party customer origination, representation, mission integration, or mission-management channels; the allocation of responsibilities; and the processes used to protect customer choice, confidential information, safety, and Contractor accountability.

Offerors are not precluded from working with subcontractors, independent mission operators, customer representatives, brokers, integrators, or other customer-acquisition and mission-management channels. Prime Contractors shall still be responsible for all contract requirements and deliverables and maintain responsibility for the Destination if they chose to allow independent or third-party operators to maintain or operate the Destination. The Offerors shall be required to describe those relationships and roles and responsibilities. NASA plans to update DRD CLDC-002 Commercialization and Business Plan to include reporting on sales to third-party operators and the roles and responsibilities between the Prime and third-party.

THEME: CATEGORY 2 LAUNCH VEHICLE

25. DRFP Section H, INSURANCE FOR DAMAGE TO PROPERTY - Ask: Please clarify when NLS Category 2 v.

Category 3 launches will be utilized.

NASA is requiring use of NLS Certified Cat 2 or Cat 3 launch vehicles for all areas of the CLDC contract including transportation crew and cargo vehicles as well as launch vehicles utilized for commercial elements within the CLDS. Launch vehicles do not need to be certified at the time of proposal but certification will be required prior to launch. Because NASA has an interest in maintaining schedule and mitigating financial risk, if Cat 2 vehicles are utilized for launch of critical elements (after receiving prior approval from NASA), additional insurance will be required. Based on industry feedback, NASA plans to reduce the amount of insurance to $200M in the final

RFP.

26. DRFP Section H, INSURANCE FOR DAMAGE TO PROPERTY - If a NLS category 2 launch vehicle is used for launch, shouldn't that insurance be built into the provider? Or will this be purchased through NASA? Ask: Please clarify the application of proceeds.

NASA does not plan to provide insurance as part of this contract. The Offeror is expected to acquire the required insurance outlined in the contract. The insurance required under clause H.26 Insurance for Damage to Property, paragraph (d), is meant to cover property damage to destination elements and is not specifically related to the Launch vehicle. The Offeror is responsible for determining how that insurance and where the cost of the insurance is levied. NASA plans to reduce the $500M amount listed in the Draft RFP to $200M in the Final RFP based on industry feedback.

THEME: COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY RESTRICTIONS

27. DRFP Section H, COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY GUIDANCE Paragraph (d). For proposed activities or communications that appear to conflict with the requirements under this clause, the contractor shall submit a formal letter to the Contracting Officer for approval, which describes the proposed activity or communication and the contractor’s rationale for deviation. The Contracting Officer will determine whether NASA approves or denies the proposed activity or communication. This section ("(d)") is subjective and Industry may not be interested in or able to agree to NASA's approval of all commercial activity.

NASA plans to update this clause to redefine that Contracting Officer Approval is required for the activities under Section (c) of this clause, related to use for military operations or activities involving designated countries.

28. SOW 2.20.1 Minimum Standard Text - "If they are from a Designated Countries Tier II and III, NASA approval must be granted."

Ask: Is it correct to assume every mission, including short duration missions, will have a NASA crewmember?

NASA intends to have a NASA crewmember on every mission it orders. In addition, activities involving Tier II and III Designated Countries require NASA HQ (Office of International and Interagency (OIIR)) review and approval regardless of NASA participation or if their inclusion is under a NASA Mission Service Order.

29. DRFP Section H, COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY GUIDANCE - If this clause is not intended to capture every commercial activity of the Contractor, will NASA consider re-scoping paragraphs (a)–(c) to activities and communications (i) performed under this contract or a task order, (ii) involving NASA crew, payloads, personnel, insignia, identity, or imagery, or (iii) affecting safety of integrated operations. Govern remaining commercial activities through the DRD CLDC-009 Commercial Activities Management Plan?

All activities that occur during CLD Operations (Ground, Flight & On-Orbit) are subject to the restrictions contained in H.30 Commercial Activity Guidance.

30. DRFP Section H, COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY GUIDANCE - The clause prohibits content that is "partisan political activity or political advocacy," "inappropriate for a general audience," or "reflecting poorly or unfavorably on the relationships or operations of the United States Government," applicable to the Contractor, "the Partner," non- Government astronauts, and (via (b)) all activities.

30a. (1) Please define each quoted standard, identify who applies it and by what criteria, and confirm whether it applies to the personal communications of private astronauts (including foreign nationals, journalists, and artists), to customers' content, and to the Contractor's own corporate communications.

NASA incorporates these standard commercial activity guidelines to protect the agency's public image and the broader interests of the United States Government. Rather than prescribing a rigid set of definitions or a formal review process, NASA evaluates these standards contextually on a case-by-case basis. The contractor is responsible for ensuring that all activities utilizing the CLD infrastructure—including those of private astronauts, partners, and commercial customers—comply with these baseline standards of conduct. NASA relies on the contractor to exercise reasonable commercial judgment in managing its customer base, operations, and communications to ensure activities do not violate these broad principles.

30b. (2) As drafted, "political advocacy" and "related to the Destination" (paragraph (a)) would appear to prohibit the Contractor's own government-relations activity — including advocating to Congress for CLD program funding or commenting on space regulatory reform. Is that intended?. H.30 does not restrict the Contractor’s private or independent corporate government-relations activities or private political advocacy when not on the Destination. The clause prohibits using the On-Orbit CLD to engage in or communicate partisan political activities or political advocacy, or for other nations’ political activities or advocacy.

30c. (3) Paragraph (b)(6) as drafted could reach truthful statements the Contractor is legally required to make — securities disclosures of Government-related risks (contract disputes, shutdown impacts), safety reporting, and communications protected by whistleblower statutes and FAR 52.203-19's prohibition on contract terms restricting lawful reporting. Please reconcile.

Section (b)(6) does not prohibit the contractor from making any legally-required, truthful statements or negate any rights or protections allowed under the Whistleblower statutes. Paragraph (b)(6) requires the Contractor to use its best judgment in determining whether activities reflect poorly or unfavorably on the relationships or operations of the United States Government. NASA intends to add paragraph (b)(7) to the final RFP to clarify that this does not prohibit legally required disclosures, safety reporting, or whistleblower communications.

31. DRFP Section H, COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY GUIDANCE - This clause contains content- and viewpoint-based restrictions on private speech imposed as a condition of a government contract, raising significant First Amendment (unconstitutional-conditions) and vagueness concerns when applied beyond NASA-sponsored or NASA-branded contexts. Independently, paragraph (b)(6) conflicts with mandatory-disclosure regimes. For an international operator, the "general audience" standard also collides with differing national content norms among customers and distribution markets. If that is not the intent, will NASA edit by:

31a. (1) deleting paragraph (b)(6), or narrow it to false or misleading statements attributing positions or endorsements to NASA or the USG?

Section (b)(6) does not prohibit the contractor from making legally required disclosures or negate any rights or protections allowed under the Whistleblower statues. Paragraph (b)(6) requires the contractor to use its best judgment in determining whether activities reflect poorly or unfavorably on the relationships or operations of the United States Government.

31b. (2) Limit the political-activity and audience-suitability standards to NASA-sponsored events, NASA-branded content, and activities under NASA task orders?

NASA expects the contractor and its customers to ensure content is not inappropriate for a general audience and is not partisan political activity or political advocacy, at all times.

31c. (3) Add an express savings clause preserving legally required disclosures, safety reporting, whistleblower communications, and petitioning activity?

NASA intends to clarify in the final RFP under paragraph (b)(7) that “Section (b) 1 through 6 do not prohibit legally required disclosures, safety reporting, or whistleblower communications.”

32. DRFP Section H, COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY GUIDANCE - Paragraph (a) covers external communications during CLD Operations or "related to the Destination" — the latter reaching investor relations, earnings calls, advertising, customer announcements, and employee communications anywhere, at any time during the contract span. Is this NASA's intent? If not, will NASA amend the clause by striking "or related to the Destination," or replace with "originating from the Destination or concerning NASA activities, crew, or payloads aboard the Destination"?

All activities that occur during CLD Operations (Ground, Flight & On-Orbit) are subject to the restrictions contained in H.30 Commercial Activity Guidance.

33. DRFP Section H, COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY GUIDANCE - Paragraph (c)(2) gives NASA a discretionary veto over segments of the Contractor's international customer base beyond what U.S. law requires, on an unpublished and mutable list, with no criteria or timeline. International customers require contractual certainty before committing to multi-year missions; an unbounded approval right is a sales impediment competitor on foreign platforms do not face, and it will be priced into every proposal.

33a. (1) Please identify the source document, current content, and tier definitions of the "Designated Countries" list, and incorporate a dated version into the contract with notice of changes and grandfathering for customer agreements executed before a change.

NASA maintains a list of Designated Countries at the following url: https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/designated-country-list-8-4-2026.pdf?emrc=ddbd90. This list which was last updated on August 4, 2026, is updated frequently. The latest iteration of this list can be found at OIIR Export Control and Interagency Liaison Division (ECILD) - NASA. The countries listed are designated as requiring additional guidance, review, and approval by NASA based on national security and foreign policy. NASA retains the right to evaluate and requires approval of commercial activities directly related to or supporting Designated Countries Columns II and Tier III.

33b. (2) Please define "activities related to" – does it capture customer nationality, payload country of origin, investor nationality, foreign-national employees or crew, data recipients, downlink or media distribution into a designated country, or transactions several tiers removed?

NASA intends to update the Clause to redefine "related to" as “activities directly linked to, or supporting Designated Countries in Columns II & III.”

33c. (3) How does this requirement relate to the export-control and sanctions regimes (ITAR, EAR, OFAC) already governing these interactions? If a proposed activity is fully compliant with those regimes, what criteria will NASA apply in granting or withholding approval?

NASA will evaluate and approve activities directly related to or supporting Designated Countries Columns II and Tier III on a case-by-case basis and based on national security and foreign policy considerations.

33d. (4) What confidentiality protections apply to customer identities and terms disclosed in approval requests?

NASA will handle data in accordance with its conspicuous restrictive marking but reserves the right to review it with all need-to-know parties.

https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/designated-country-list-8-4-2026.pdf?emrc=ddbd90 https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/designated-country-list-8-4-2026.pdf?emrc=ddbd90 https://www.nasa.gov/oiir/export-control/

34. DRFP Section H, COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY GUIDANCE - Paragraph (c) grants NASA a discretionary veto over segments of the Contractor's international customer base beyond what U.S. law requires, on an unpublished and mutable list, with no criteria or timeline. International customers require contractual certainty before committing to multi-year missions; an unbounded approval right is a sales impediment competitor on foreign platforms do not face, and it will be priced into every proposal. Will NASA;incorporate the list by dated reference;

NASA maintains a list of Designated Countries currently found at the following url: https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/designated-country-list-8-4-2026.pdf?emrc=ddbd90. This list, which was last updated on August 4, 2026, is updated frequently. The latest iteration of this list can be found at OIIR Export Control and Interagency Liaison Division (ECILD) - NASA. The countries listed are designated as requiring additional guidance, review, and approval by NASA based on national security and foreign policy considerations. NASA retains the right to evaluate and approve any commercial activities directly related to or supporting Designated Countries Columns II and Tier III.

34a. define "related to" narrowly (direct participation in Destination activities by a designated-country government or national);

NASA intends to update the Clause in the final RFP to redefine "related to" as “activities directly linked to, or supporting Designated Countries Columns II & III.”

34b. deem approved any activity authorized under applicable export-control and sanctions law absent written CO objection within a stated period;

NASA retains the right to evaluate for approval any commercial activities directly related to or supporting Designated Countries Columns II and III.

35c. and protect submitted business information under standard proprietary-data safeguards?

NASA will handle data in accordance with its conspicuous restrictive marking but reserves the right to review it with all “need-to-know” parties.

35. DRFP Section H, COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY GUIDANCE - National-security customers — U.S. and allied — are a material segment of the projected commercial LEO market. Ambiguity here directly reduces addressable revenue and creates interagency friction NASA presumably does not intend.

35a. (1) Please define "Military Operations" in paragraph (c)(1). The parenthetical exclusions (Recruiting, Humanitarian, Science, Training) produce anomalous results as written — military recruiting content is excluded from the prohibition while, e.g., a defense-funded materials-science experiment may or may not be, depending on whether "Science" is read as excluding it.

Military Operations in this context is related to military activities for other than commercial, peaceful or utilization related purposes. Defense funded materials-science would be excluded as a utilization or science related activity, as long as it is not a military operation.

35b. (2) Will utilization of the Destination by U.S. Government national-security customers (DoD, other agencies) constitute "Military Operations" requiring NASA approval? If so, please explain the basis for one agency's contracting officer gatekeeping another U.S. agency's lawful use of a commercial facility.

Yes – Military use of the destination would require CO approval.

https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/designated-country-list-8-4-2026.pdf?emrc=ddbd90 https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/designated-country-list-8-4-2026.pdf?emrc=ddbd90

35c. (3) Many international astronauts are serving military officers, and allied-government research is frequently defense-ministry funded. Does flying a foreign air force officer as a customer crew member, or hosting allied dual-use research lawful under U.S. export control, trigger the prohibition?

Flying a foreign air force officer as a customer crew member, or hosting allied dual-use research lawful under U.S. export control does not trigger the prohibition; however other restrictions (e.g., seeking NASA approval for activities directly linked to, or supporting Designated Countries as required under the final RFP) may apply.

36. DRFP Section H, COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY GUIDANCE - Paragraph (d) requires a formal letter to the Contracting Officer for any activity or communication that "appear[s] to conflict" with the clause, with no decision criteria, no response timeline, no deemed-approval mechanism, no confidentiality commitment, and no stated path to the Disputes clause. (1) The trigger is self-judging — given the vagueness of the underlying standards (Items A-2, A-11), contractors will over-submit and the CO becomes a bottleneck for routine commercial content. (2) Live broadcasts, real-time crew communications, and social media cannot be pre-cleared letter-by-letter. (3) Approval requests will contain competitively sensitive customer information. First and foremost, will NASA please make adjustments to the scope and types of activities governed by this clause, following that update, replace per-item letters with an annual (or per-increment) approval of categories of activities and communications through DRD CLDC-009, with individual submissions reserved for items outside approved categories; commit to a decision within a stated period (e.g., 15 business days) with deemed approval thereafter; state that approval will not be unreasonably withheld and will be based on enumerated criteria; protect submissions as proprietary; and confirm CO determinations are subject to the Disputes clause.

NASA plans to make updates to this clause in the final RFP. NASA intends to update the clause to clarify that Contracting Officer Approval is only required under paragraph (c), related to use for military operations or designated countries. NASA also expects to update the Communications clause in the Final RFP to define criteria for NASA coordination of live broadcasts, real-time communications, social media, and other media-related products.

37. DRFP Section H, COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY GUIDANCE - Please clarify paragraph (b) The clause requires conformance with "NASA Policies" and other documents.

37a. (1) "NASA Policies" encompasses hundreds of directives written for Government activities; please identify the specific policies intended to apply to commercial operations.

NASA plans to update the clause to remove NASA policies

37b. (2) Will the applicable versions of the various documents be incorporated by date, with subsequent changes handled under the Changes clause with equitable adjustment?

Contractors shall refer to the latest guidance as they determine their commercial activities. Changes to the references listed in paragraph (b)(1) and (b)(2) are not expected; however, any necessary changes would be handled post award.

37c. (3) "U.S. Treaties" bind the United States, not private parties directly; restate as compliance with U.S. laws, regulations, and license conditions implementing U.S. treaty obligations.

NASA plans to update the clause to clarify the requirement under paragraph (b)(1) as follows: Comply with U.S.

Laws, U.S. Regulations, and license conditions implementing U.S. Treaty obligations, and Contract Requirements.

38. DRFP Section H, COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY GUIDANCE - Requiring all Destination content to follow NASA Media and Branding Guidelines is inappropriate where the content neither uses NASA identity nor depicts NASA personnel or payloads — e.g., a foreign customer's product advertisement filmed in a commercial module.

Recommended change: Limit (b)(2) to content that uses NASA insignia, identity, or imagery or depicts NASA personnel or payloads, consistent with 14 CFR Part 1221; revise (b)(5) to clearly state that NASA insignia, emblems, and identity may be used only as authorized through the TIER (DRD CLDC-203) and CAMP (DRD CLDC-009) processes.

NASA is requiring Contractors and Destination users…