Draft RFP Industry Q and A Part 3.pdf

CLDC Draft RFP Industry Questions and Answers - Round 3 Draft Rev as of October 9, 2026

This round of questions finalizes NASA’s answers to questions or recommendations provided against the Draft RFP and subsequent Q&A releases prior to the Final RFP.

NASA has answered and addressed every question due on or before July 27, 2026 at 8:00am from the original Draft RFP release, and has answered as many questions as possible received after the Q&A submission deadline.

If your question, comment or recommendation was not included or not addressed in Round 1, 2 or 3 of Q&A responses, Offeror’s may resubmit questions as part of the Final RFP release. Offerors should review all solicitation documents to ensure the question is still necessary as some questions were submitted as duplicates and/or a change may have already been made.

NASA will review all questions submitted from the Final RFP, but NASA is not obligated to respond to all questions or requests received.

NASA previously corrected Round 1 and 2 Q&A prior to Final RFP release in an attempt to update answers where they had changed after the Q&A response was posted. NASA is not providing additional corrections to previous answers provided and Offerors shall use the Final RFP and associated solicitation documents as the authoritative source if a conflict is found.

THEME: AMERICAN TAXPAYER

1. DRFP Section H, AMERICAN TAXPAYER PROTECTIONS - CLD can't negotiate lower prices with customers without having to renegotiate the NASA contract to give NASA the same lower price. Dynamic pricing required in sales would be virtually impossible. This requirement is a huge deterrent to successful CLD commercialization.

NASA has updated the final RFP to establish a Fair Market Pricing policy versus a “Most Favored” policy for CLDs across the customer base acknowledging objectively supported differences related to NASA requirements. NASA is asking Industry to establish a common pricing structure to support and move the industry to a more commercial market with established pricing. If the Contractor requests NASA to consider outside the pricing that are lower than NASA is paying, they can submit the request before the formal offering by providing NASA objectively supported differences outlined in the clause.

2. DRFP Section H, AMERICAN TAXPAYER PROTECTIONS(b)(2) - Suggest: "The Contractor shall not provide discounted, preferential, or materially advantageous valuations to sovereign nations or third parties in a manner that results in NASA paying a higher effective rate than commercial customers or sovereign nations. For any crewed missions quoted to NASA under this contract, the price and commercial terms shall be no less favorable than the best (lowest) price and terms comparable offered to any other customer, foreign or domestic, during the preceding 3-mo. period.

This removes NASA requirement (and involvement in) establishing "common commercial value for services" while ensuring that within a reasonable period between offers/contracts, NASA receives Most Favored Pricing.

NASA has updated the final RFP to include a timeframe for evaluation.

3. DRFP Section H, AMERICAN TAXPAYER PROTECTIONS - Adopt an approach with pricing adjusted for the risk and cost differences between NASA and other customers.

NASA has updated the final RFP to allow for objectively supported differences.

4. DRFP Section H, AMERICAN TAXPAYER PROTECTIONS - Would NASA consider providing greater flexibility in pricing, customer allocation, and capacity management provided NASA mission requirements remain protected but largely unknown mission to mission?

Ask: NASA should allow providers flexibility in pricing and customer allocation provided NASA mission requirements are met, with capacity release mechanisms for unexercised options.

NASA has updated the final RFP to establish a Fair Market Pricing policy versus a “Most Favored” policy for CLDs across the customer base acknowledging objectively supported differences. The clause allows the contractor flexibility to establish a common commercial value for services based on their unique technical approach and pricing structure.

5. DRFP Section H, AMERICAN TAXPAYER PROTECTIONS - We support the clause's intent. Ask: (1)

Request definitions to make compliance auditable: the measurement 'period,' the effective-price/effective-rate methodology, valuation method for barter/in-kind consideration, and documentation safe harbors for objectively supported differences (risk, volume, term, configuration).

(2) Please define the required content and format of the quarterly 'American Taxpayer reporting.' NASA has updated the final RFP to outline the reporting structure in DRD CLDC-002, Commercialization Plan.

6. DRFP Section H, AMERICAN TAXPAYER PROTECTIONS - Recommend adding the words "substantially similar" in front of "services" in all cases. Commercial customers may have different needs than NASA's defined services. This addition allows prices to align to customer needs and avoids future confusion regarding most favored pricing comparisons. In addition, pricing remedies should be negotiated rather than a unilateral Government action considering the commercial nature of these services.

NASA has updated the final RFP to allow for objectively supported differences in pricing.

7. DRFP Section H, AMERICAN TAXPAYER PROTECTIONS - Paragraph (b)(1) provides that pricing and barter values shall be uniform and nondiscriminatory "except for objectively supported differences as determined by NASA (e.g., mission risk, duration, unique payload integration)." Paragraph (b)(2), Most Favored Pricing, contains no corresponding qualifier and appears to require an unqualified comparison against the lowest price and most favorable terms offered to any customer.

Questions: Question 1. Is the "objectively supported differences" exception in (b)(1) intended to apply to the Most Favored Pricing comparison in (b)(2)? If so, the Contractor requests that the qualifier be stated expressly in (b)(2), so that the comparison is made against transactions of substantially similar scope, mission profile, volume and commercial terms.

NASA has updated the final RFP to establish a Fair Market Pricing policy versus a “Most Favored” policy for CLDs across the customer base acknowledging objectively supported differences related to NASA requirements. Additionally, updates to the RFP allow for justification of differences including use of barters and agreements.

Question 2. Please define "during the same period" for the purposes of (b)(2) and confirm whether it refers to the period of performance of the relevant Task Order or to a calendar period.

During the same period is defined as the pricing provided in the same calendar year. For example, the comparison to determine equitable pricing (along with any substantiated differences) will use the same Calendar Year NTE pricing in the CLDC contract when comparing against the year that other customers’ pricing was provided.

Question 3. Please clarify the scope of "commercial terms." Does the comparison extend to non-price terms such as payment schedules, liability allocation, manifest priority, or launch schedule commitments, which are not readily commensurable across customers?

“Commercial terms” should be interpreted broadly to include both price and non-price terms.

8. DRFP Section H, AMERICAN TAXPAYER PROTECTIONS - All U.S. contractors respect the U.S.

taxpayer and appreciate NASA’s responsibility to protect U.S. taxpayers. Even so, NASA will not be the sole funder, and may not even be the majority funder, for the development of the space stations supported by this IDIQ; in fact, NASA is demanding that its contractors for CLDC find private investors. Contractors will have fiduciary obligations to those investors that must be treated as equal to their obligations to U.S. taxpayers; if NASA demands that its rights be treated as superior to those of our investors than then this project cannot succeed. Therefore, the matter of a “subsidy” is not straightforward; it may be in the interest of a given contractor to provide a particular service to a particular customer “at a loss” for some period of time to secure more profitable business from that same customer in the long term. If that “loss” comes without any degradation in service to NASA, and if that “loss” places no additional financial burden on NASA, and if that “loss” only has financial relevance to a contractor’s other investors, then that “loss” cannot be considered a “subsidy” by NASA irrespective of any price differences. Further, NASA cannot operate with all the tools that other customers can in the free market; for example, NASA cannot offer a profit share on future product sales derived from research on a space station (the list of NASA’s market limitations is expansive). Therefore, respectfully, it is not clear how NASA is qualified to assess the questions of either “objectively supported differences” or “material advantageous valuations” when comparing terms and conditions for a mix of services in the free market.

NASA has updated the final RFP to provide examples of objectively supported differences.

9. DRFP Section H, AMERICAN TAXPAYER PROTECTIONS - The requirement to provide contract and back-up accounting information in order to be compliant with this clause may effectively create the need on the part of contractor for a cost-accounting system equal to that required for auditing on a cost-plus contract. Request NASA confirm the expected level of substantiation for compliance. If cost-reimbursement-grade accounting is not intended, recommend the clause state the expected substantiation standard.

The final RFP has been updated along with CLDC-DRD-002 Commercialization Plan to provide clarification. NASA expects offerors to provide a logical, traceable pricing structure to substantiate differences in pricing or terms among customers but does not require a cost accounting system.

The intent of this clause is to ensure NASA is not subsidizing seats for other customers and for Contractors to have a mechanism to provide verifications.

10. DRFP Section H, AMERICAN TAXPAYER PROTECTIONS - NASA is seeking to ensure that it has the lowest possible prices for access to and utilization of a commercial space station. There is a direct relationship between the total number of NASA requirements, and the number of Type 1 DRDs, and total costs to contractors. Will NASA consider either the elimination of requirements or the recategorization of DRDs from Type 1 to Type 2 expressly for the purpose of reducing costs? Given that price is the highest-weighted selection criterion, how is NASA weighing the balance of requirements and price to position itself for the best possible price? Recommend NASA weigh requirement volume and DRD typing alongside this clause, as these are the more direct levers on the prices NASA will ultimately pay.

NASA is allowing pricing differences that are substantiated with objective data; however, overall certification requirements should not be considered in pricing differences as other customers, specifically foreign governments, are accepting NASA certification to ensure they are safe and so they do not need to levy that oversight. NASA has updated the Final RFP to recategorize some of the DRD types.

11. DRFP Section H, AMERICAN TAXPAYER PROTECTIONS - As drafted, the American Taxpayer Protections clause works against the commercial LEO marketplace the program seeks to build: its mechanisms are difficult to administer in a multi-customer market and would constrain the development of a sustainable commercial destination marketplace. As written, it also places a substantial discretionary and administrative burden on NASA.

With revisions the objective of preventing U.S. taxpayer funds from “subsidizing foreign and private space tourism and sovereign astronaut seats and Mission Services” can still be achieved; and in a manner that (1) does not actively preclude the development of a commercial LEO destination marketplace; (2) does not place a discretionary and administrative burden on NASA; and (3) does not place an undefined and ambiguous obligation on contractors. The key shift to enable this is the focus on the use, or in this case prohibition on use, of Federal appropriated funds, rather than to present an unwieldy most favored pricing mechanism. This is similar to various prohibitions on the use of appropriated funds throughout the FAR. FAR 52.203-12 Limitation on Payments to Influence Certain Federal Transactions and FAR 52.203-11 Certification and Disclosure Regarding Payments to Influence Certain Federal Transactions offer particular analogous mechanisms for a prohibition and certification regime.

These revisions are:

Reformatting subsection (a) to make the first sentence a subheading, and the second sentence a sub-subsection at level (1), revised to read in full “U.S. taxpayer funds, meaning Federal appropriated funds, under this contract shall not be used to finance, discount, rebate, or otherwise subsidize seats for foreign and private space tourists or sovereign astronauts.” with the underlined portion added for clarity.

Replacing subsections (b) and (c) in full, to now provide subheading (b) “(b) Certification of compliance with the prohibition on subsidizing foreign and private space tourism and sovereign astronaut seats and Mission Services.” and provide sub-subsections (1) and (2) “(1) In fulfillment of the obligation in subsection (a), the Contractor certifies that no Federal appropriated funds from this contract shall be paid to private space tourists or non-US sovereign astronauts. (2) To the extent the Contractor can demonstrate that the Contractor has sufficient monies, other than Federal appropriated funds from this contract, the Government will assume that these other monies were spent for any payments that would be prohibited if paid for with Federal appropriated funds under from this contract.”

NASA has updated final RFP to address industry comments in this area. Intent of this clause is to ensure NASA is not subsidizing for other customers.

12. DRFP Section H, AMERICAN TAXPAYER PROTECTIONS - The Protect the American Public details are excellent. I would ask for AI use, particularly for data/analysis and access to their internal systems as a weighted technical factor.

NASA has clarified in a number of areas of the RFP where commercial processes and systems may be utilized for efficiency including the use of Contractor innovations and systems for delivery of data. NASA is still evaluating the proper use of Super Intelligence (SI) in general while ensuring safety and there are ongoing efforts to develop specific requirements for the Agency. Use of SI for safety critical functions is not planned to be allowed.

THEME: BUSINESS & COMMERCIALIZATION PLAN

13. DRFP Attachment L-07, Business Case Analysis Template - The revenue basis of estimate tab requires revenue and financing be provided in $millions. However, there is no period for this revenue estimate. Without the required period for this revenue, it is not possible for the bidders to know what should be included for the revenue and financing sections of this tab.

The Revenue Narrative Tab has been deleted and combined with the Proforma Cash Flow tab to allow the offeror to provide a narrative associated with each revenue category requested. The period of revenue and narrative is now associated with the same period of performance as the contract and is outlined as such in the template.

Note: NASA has updated Attachment L-07, Business Case Analysis Template to combine and add a tab for the Corporate Contribution Worksheet along with the Business Case Analysis Template.

14. DRFP Attachment L-07, Business Case Analysis Template - In the 1:1, NASA stated the BOE's purpose is to confirm that all costs are accounted for, and asked offerors to identify what meets that financial intent and what may be unnecessary. We believe a full decomposition of rates is beyond the stated intent and recommends instead:

(a) a price-completeness cross-walk mapping every SOW/CLIN scope element to a priced line, demonstrating that full scope is covered and nothing is unpriced or carried off-contract;

Offerors shall follow the instructions in Attachment L-07 Business Case Analysis Template, but may submit additional information such as a cross-walk within their allotted page count.

(b) pricing shown on a fully-burdened basis at the CLIN / major-WBS level rather than unburdened element-of-cost;

The Cost Summary BOE tab has been updated to request Labor and Subcontractors as “fully burdened” and Non-Labor as unburdened with a request for a non-Labor Indirect Rate.

(c) a short basis-of-estimate methodology narrative per major element to evidence rigor;

The RFP requests for a narrative per CLIN in the Cost summary BOE.

(d) removal of the item (8) "return on investment / overhead" rationale, which reaches into profit and indirect rates that are unnecessary to confirm all costs are accounted for.

NASA has removed the references to requesting “return on investment/overhead” under Section L.17.3.2. MA.2 Commercialization and Business Approach.

15. DRFP Attachment L-07, Business Case Analysis Template - An endorsement by NASA, independent of the magnitude of the NASA development funding and associated contractual value, will unlock private capital for the space station providers. These endorsements should be made swiftly and unequivocally.

NASA has made the same minimum buy commitment to all awardees under clause H.32 Minimum Guarantee Supplement & Conditions.

16. DRFP Attachment L-07, Business Case Analysis Template - Ask: Requesting that Total Cost tables and BOEs be filled out in contractor formats, using contractor fields.

Ask: Requesting NASA use the narrative in Section L to describe at a high level "what" the government is looking for, versus a prescriptive "how". Proposers should have no issue showing cost data and BOE information that maps to CLINs, NRE/RE/Ops, and proposer's WBS, proposers account types, etc. However, mapping to specific lower-level government account codes or government specific WBS elements is likely to result in the delivery of less cost and BOE fidelity versus more, based on how proposer’s financial systems are already set up.

NASA’s approach to standardized pricing tables is designed to ensure fairness, compliance, and clarity in the procurement process. While contractors may have robust internal systems, the use of standardized formats is essential for apples-to-apples evaluation, comparison, auditability, and integration with government processes. Section L’s prescriptive instructions are meant to facilitate clear communication—not to stifle innovation. Contractors are welcome to provide supporting narratives and mapping information, but the core submission must adhere to NASA’s requirements.

17. MA.2 Commercialization and Business Approach - The Prior Contractor Investments section of Attachment L-07 does not define the temporal or programmatic boundaries of allowable contributions: there is no start date or look-back limit for prior investments, and no definition of which product-line investments qualify (e.g., investment directly attributable to the offered CLD system and its elements versus corporate investment in related or tangential product lines). The "% Applicable" field for completed IR&D likewise has no prescribed derivation basis. Because the Calculated Corporate Contribution percentage is derived from these inputs, offerors applying different assumptions - counting further back in time, or including loosely related product lines -would be differentially advantaged on an inconsistent basis. Recommend NASA define

(a) the earliest date or program milestone from which prior investments may be counted, (b) the required nexus between counted investments and the offered CLD system, Section L.17.3.2 MA.2 Commercialization and Business Approach paragraph (3) has been updated to clarify that, “For the purposes of corporate contributions, previously incurred corporate investments (e.g., non-recurring engineering, prototype development, facilities, and long-lead investments) are allowable and may be credited, but the offeror shall describe how previous investments provide a future offset to NASA’s costs. Previous contributions shall have a direct relationship with the CLD which is being certified for NASA’s use and the offeror is required to explain the previous investment and its relationship to the CLD in their proposal.”

(c) the basis for computing the IR&D applicability percentage, so corporate contributions are collected and evaluated consistently across offerors.

The Completed IR&D percentage shall be determined by each offeror which shall be accompanied by a short explanation of the percentage and its applicability to the Destination.

18. DRFP Attachment L-07, Business Case Analysis Template - The pricing and business-case templates use inconsistent reporting periods: Attachment L-01 collects pricing by NASA fiscal year through FY2042, while the Attachment L-07 Total Cost BOE uses calendar-year periods beginning 4/1/2027, ending with calendar year 2041 plus a stub period of 1/1/2042-3/31/2042 - even though the L-08 overview instructions state the workbook covers "GFY 2027 through GFY 2042." Request NASA clarify the intent of the 1/1/2042-3/31/2042 stub period, and recommend NASA align the reporting periods across the L-01 and L-08 templates (and within L-08 between the instructions and the worksheet) so cost, price, and business-case data can be cross-referenced on a consistent basis. Note also an apparent typographical error in the Year 4 period header ("12/31/2030").

All pricing instructions, sections, and attachments have been updated to refer to Calendar Year.

19. DRFP Attachment L-07, Business Case Analysis Template -The Total Cost BOE worksheet provides a CLIN 3 cost build only for the Standard Service Mission (end-to-end), although the Section L BOE narrative instructions request basis-of-estimate rationale for CLIN 3 Missions A and B as well;

request NASA reconcile the template with the instructions. Additionally, request NASA clarify whether the CLIN 3 cost build is intended to capture the full cost of each mission (including capacity and services attributable to non-NASA customers) or only the portion allocable to NASA (e.g., NASA's seats and associated transportation). Finally, since the destination enterprise is expected to serve multiple customers, recommend NASA request - or allow providers to present -an overall profit-and-loss view of the CLD business such that NASA's proportion of revenue and cost relative to other customers is visible on a consistent basis; this would give NASA a materially better view of business-case sustainability than CLIN-scoped cost data alone.

Attachment L-08 has been updated to L-07 to be combined with the Corporate Contribution Worksheet.

Updated Attachment L-07, the Cost Summary BOE Tab, CLIN 3 title has been updated to clearly request End-to-End Service BOE costs, which shall be the Offerors Total BOE Costs yearly to perform End-to-End Services. The offeror should include Mission A and B, if offered, and plug in those services in the years in which it is offered and plug in Standard Service costs once they’re available. Section L asks for Mission A and Mission B as a narrative because, as stated, the BOE Template will embed the multiple mission types if proposed, which may evolve from Mission A to Mission B and finally to Standard Service over the years proposed. NASA can determine the CLD Only pricing based on Transportation being separate line items based on the years the offerors state which mission type is available.

CLIN 3 shall assume all the elements of costs required to operate the entire destination, not just NASA requirements.

20. DRFP Attachment L-07, Business Case Analysis Template - The Total Cost BOE instructions reference an "Other" cost category "to capture costs not included in other template cost categories as required for Operations (OFI)," but the Total Cost BOE worksheet contains no corresponding Other cost section. The instructions also list a "Workforce" worksheet that is not present in the workbook. Recommend NASA reconcile the template and instructions - either adding the referenced other cost area and Workforce worksheet or revising the instructions - so offerors know where these inputs are expected.

The references to the “Other” cost category and “Workforce” have been removed from the BOE Instructions.

21. DRFP Attachment L-07, Business Case Analysis Template - The Cash Flow worksheet includes Loans, Investment, and Corporate Contribution as line items within Revenue, and both Total Revenue and the Positive/Negative Cash Flow calculations sum these financing inflows together with operating revenue. As structured, a provider's apparent revenue and profitability improve simply by raising capital, which obscures the operating economics of the destination business - the opposite of what a business-case assessment should show. This also diverges from the workbook's own instructions, which call for a pro forma cash flow statement separated into operating, investing, and financing activities.

Recommend NASA revise the worksheet to present operating results (mission/service revenue less operating costs) separately from financing activities (debt, equity, and corporate contributions), consistent with standard financial-statement presentation, so financing inflows are visible but do not inflate operating profitability. Additionally, request NASA clarify whether the worksheet should reflect the full company or only the CLD business line, since financing sources are typically raised at the corporate level.

NASA has updated Attachment L-07, Cash Flow Tab, and retitled it ProForma Cash Flow and updated the title from “Revenue” to “Operating Revenue/Investment” and retitled the “Income/Loss Total” to “Cash Flow.” NASA’s goal is to understand the offeror’s Total Cash Flow by requesting insight into all forms of Operating Revenue, Loans, Investments, and other contributions in comparison to Operating Expenses. The ProForma Cash Flow tab does also separately break out the non-mission specific (or non-operating revenue) so that NASA can make an assessment on how that impacts the total Cash Flow.

22. DRFP Attachment L-07, Business Case Analysis Template - The Cash Flow worksheet prescribes a fixed revenue breakdown (Utilization/Habitation and Seat Sales, each by NASA/Sovereign Government/Commercial), while costs are presented as CLIN 1-3 total lines. The two structures do not map to one another: it is unclear where NASA payments under CLINs 1 and 2 are to be recorded, and CLIN 3 mission revenue spans both prescribed revenue categories, with utilization co-mingled. Providers' business models will also differ in how they package seats, utilization, and habitation. Recommend NASA allow providers flexibility to propose a revenue breakdown that reflects their business model - subject to a minimum standard (e.g., NASA vs. non-NASA revenue clearly segregated, and revenue reconcilable to the CLIN cost lines) - rather than prescribing a fixed presentation. This would give NASA a more accurate and decision-useful picture of each provider's business case.

NASA recognized the omissions requesting "CLIN 1 and CLIN 2" type Revenue in the Cash Flow Tab. NASA has updated the Cash Flow tab to identify "Non-Mission Specific" Revenue, such as Development and Certification, Loans, Investments, etc. as a single section. The offeror should be able to identify all types of revenue regardless of CLIN to determine Cash Flow based on CLIN 1-3 Operating Costs.

NASA has also adjusted the Utilization/Habitation section to "Utilization Revenue" only and merged Habitation with Transportation under Seat Sales section in the Cash Flow Tab; to represent Seat Sales at the two highest levels. And removed NASA, Sovereign and Commercial Sales.

23. DRFP Attachment L-07, Business Case Analysis Template - The proposal instructions are inconsistent as to which transportation scenario the business-case worksheets should reflect.

Section L.17.2(a) and Attachment L-01 require CLIN 3 Mission Services to be priced both as End-to- End Service and as CLD Only (Without Transportation), and an offeror not proposing an End-to-End Transportation model may instead request Government Furnished Transportation and Support Services (GFTSS) via Attachment J-15. Attachment L-08, however, accommodates only the End-to- End scenario: the Total Cost BOE CLIN 3 section is labeled "Standard Service Mission (end-to-end)," the instructions direct offerors to "include the crew and cargo transportation to and from orbit," and the Cash Flow worksheet's revenue structure is built on transportation-inclusive Seat Sales. There is no provision for a CLD-Only/GFTSS business case, in which transportation is neither a provider cost nor a provider revenue.

Request NASA clarify whether the Attachment L-08 business-case and cash-flow worksheets should be prepared for the End-to-End scenario, the CLD-Only/GFTSS scenario, or both, and reconcile Attachment L-08 with the dual-scenario pricing required by Attachment L-01 and the GFTSS option under Attachment J-15, so that all offerors document their business cases on a consistent and comparable basis.

Updated Attachment L-07, the Cost Summary BOE Tab, CLIN 3 title, has been updated to clearly request End-to-End Service BOE costs, which shall be the Offerors Total BOE Costs yearly to perform End-to-End Services. The offeror should include Mission A and B if offered and plug in those services in the years in which offered and plug in Standard Service costs once they’re available. Section L asks for Mission A and Mission B as a narrative because, as stated, the BOE Template will embed the multiple mission types if proposed, which may evolve from Mission A to Mission B and finally to Standard Service over the years proposed. NASA can delineate the CLD Only pricing based on Transportation being separate line items based on the years the offerors states which mission type is available. The Instructions tab has clarified it is for End-to-End services which also includes GFTSS pricing within End-to-End Services. "The CLIN 3 Operations costs are for End-to-End Services which can incorporate GFTSS as the transportation methodology in the End-to-End pricing. "

Per Attachment L-08 GFTSS Pricing Instructions for Section B, the CLD Only + GFTSS Pricing is to be proposed as End-to-End Pricing. So, there is no difference. If GFTSS is proposed the offeror shall use the NASA provided costs for those increments/years where GFTSS costs are applied.

24. DRD CLDC-002, Commercialization Plan - Recommend that NASA accept delta/change-page submissions with a change log in lieu of complete quarterly reissue, and permit incorporation by reference for content duplicated in the Volume IV Financial Capability Disclosure (L.17.5(e), p. 335) and other DRDs. This reduces recurring compliance cost on a quarterly deliverable which would otherwise flow into the price paid by NASA.

Changes/Updates to DRD CLDC-002 Commercialization Plan are required to be incorporated by complete reissue with a change log. The contractor needs to include the details required in each DRD submission package and should limit where they call out references, which then requires information to be found in several areas instead of one single place.

25. DRFP L.17.5 RESPONSIBILITY CONSIDERATIONS - D L.17.5(e) states CLDC-002 will supplement the Government’s financial capability assessment. How will NASA use quarterly CLDC-002 financial-health data in program decisions during performance (e.g., task order issuance, continuation, on-ramp/off-ramp actions), and is there a defined standard and engagement process if NASA develops financial-capability concerns? Contractors must understand the decision framework their recurring disclosures feed, and the process for responding to any concerns before program actions are taken.

NASA has removed the statement in Volume IV, that NASA will use DRD CLDC-002 to supplement the Government’s financial capability assessment. NASA will utilize the quarterly DRD CLDC-002 Commercialization Plan data as a proactive, collaborative risk-management tool to ensure the long-term viability of the Commercial LEO Destinations (CLD).

THEME: Cat 2 LAUNCH VEHICLE

26. SOW 2.17 requires launch vehicles for all CLDS elements to meet no less than NASA Launch Services Category 2 criteria per LSP-PLN-324.01 and NPD 8610.7D, with NASA conducting an independent risk assessment for Category 2 vehicles. This floor significantly restricts the CLD business case: it precludes emerging domestic launch providers and internationally operated vehicles that could support sovereign customer barter arrangements (e.g., H3 for JAXA, Ariane 6 for ESA), and it manages risk as though each element were a unique, one-off module — inconsistent with architectures in which the loss of a single uncrewed element is a commercially recoverable event borne by the Contractor rather than a program-critical failure.

Recommend: (a) confirm NASA will accept an independent NASA risk assessment in lieu of formally held certification, consistent with the approach used for commercial cargo services, and permit vehicles with certification in progress at proposal; (b) permit a lower certification category for uncrewed element launches under architectures with a cargo-class risk posture; (c) clarify whether internationally operated launch vehicles supporting sovereign barter arrangements can qualify; and (d) reconcile this requirement with Clause Insurance paragraph (d), which separately requires $500,000,000 element insurance for Category 2 launches — a Category 2 certification floor combined with a Category 2 insurance penalty effectively compels Category 3 and further narrows the launch market.

NASA is concerned about schedule, financial, and mission success risks if less than Cat 3 vehicles are utilized for launch of critical elements.

THEME: COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY RESTRICTIONS

27. DRFP Section H, COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY GUIDANCE - Text: "(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 appears to conflict with the request for a Contractor-provided process for review of commercial activities requiring USG support, per DRD CLDC-009.

Ask: Please clarify the expectations and scope of DRD CLDC-009 with respect to this clause.

The purpose of paragraph (d) in Clause H.30 Commercial Activity Guidance is to provide an opportunity for Contractors to submit a request for a deviation if an activity may be in conflict with the clause guidance.

DRD CLCD-009 Commercial Activity Management Plan is requesting Contractors submit their plan on how they will plan to evaluate “all” Commercial Activities to ensure compliance with Contract requirements. Additionally, the DRD is asking for the Contractor’s plan on how they will interface and coordinate with NASA if Government support, personnel, or assets are needed to support a Commercial Activity.

28. DRFP Section H, COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY GUIDANCE - Who determines whether an activity or communication "undermines" these interests, at what time, and against what criteria? As an eligibility condition for the entire commercial enterprise, the phrase is too indeterminate to price or to counsel customers on.

NASA has updated this clause along with DRD CLDC-009 Commercial Activity Management Plan and DRD CLDC-129 Crew Code of Conduct to provide better clarity of Commercial Activity Guidance & requirements, by removing of ambiguity and allow industry to provide their approach and how they would define meeting Clause H.30 Commercial Activity Guidance.

THEME: CONTRACT TYPE

29. DRFP - A recent OIG report on a NASA acquisition concluded the use of a firm-fixed-price acquisition strategy on an inherently developmental system, ultimately hindered its providers’ success. In addition, the message from the Administrator on March 18, 2026, indicated that firm-fixed-price contracts are the default when

• Commercial products and services are supported by a robust market

• Mature and proven products or capabilities already in operation

• Clearly defined high TRL deliverables

• Short studies and concepts

• High production easily forecasted or recurring procurements.

These conditions do not apply to CLDC. Respectfully request that Agency consider a hybrid contract type at IDIQ level to support development/cert (CLIN 1, 2) and FFP as capabilities mature.

The agency has considered multiple other types of contracts/agreements, as well as industry feedback, and determined that use of a firm-fixed price contract type for the human certification of commercial low Earth orbit destinations, and follow-on services is in the best interest of the government and offers the best opportunity for success by providing industry the most flexibility, supporting innovation in design and service offering, and addressing many of industry’s concerns.

Based on industry’s input, NASA is proceeding with its original plan to procure commercial services through FAR-based contract(s) awarded via full and open competition. Industry has told NASA they believe they can meet the timelines and that a viable commercial marketplace can exist where NASA is one customer among many and expressed high confidence in their ability to attract additional capital investment and expand future market opportunities after NASA makes an award.

30. DRFP Cover Letter - The additional information, item 4, stipulates that the SHALL obtain and maintain national security facility clearance level (FCL) up to a TOP SECRET. How, if at all, will such FCL be applied on board a commercial station, recognizing that CLD will have citizens of multiple nationalities working and living in close proximity with a high likelihood of not being able to isolate, or otherwise being able secure spaces and maintain uncompromised communications?

NASA has updated the Final RFP to detail the requirements in the Statement of Work Section 2.0 and included Attachment J-18, Contract Security Classification Specification (DD254). It is NASA’s intent not to require all crew members on board to have SECRET or TOP SECRET clearance, but rather NASA and Contractor ground personnel to support any sensitive discussions. If crew members are required to be isolated or support sensitive discussions, NASA will work those details for the need for SECRET or TOP SECRET clearance in future RFTOP(s) as needed and at that time the appropriate information and protocols will be communicated to the greatest extent practicable.

31. DRFP Section E, 1852.246-73 (Sept 2025) Human Space Flight Item - Industry could use a DEVIATION that says, "nothing in this clause requires Subcontractor to stop work or work to specifications other than what has been negotiated between the Prime Contractor and Subcontractor" (or equivalent). Clause causes firms to decline work due to high increase in likelihood of subcontract requirements change/performance change/payment change.

The purpose of 1852.246-73 is to ensure the highest standards of quality and safety for human space flight items, given the criticality of these missions. The clause is intended to flow down essential requirements to all levels of the supply chain to protect crew safety and mission success.

As a matter of federal procurement policy and NASA’s obligations for human spaceflight safety, Primes are required to notify NASA when there is a higher quality item than what has been specified or proposed . The prime contractor is responsible for managing its subcontractors and ensuring compliance with all contract requirements, including those related to quality and safety. Any changes to subcontractor work, specifications, or performance should be managed through the prime’s established processes and negotiated agreements with its subs. NASA does not have privity of contract with subcontractors and does not direct their work.

32. DRFP Section H, SUCCESS DETERMINATION - It is unclear whether there is any procedure by which the Offeror can challenge an adverse success determination. This ambiguity is particularly significant since the success determinations are tied to monetary penalties. Request the government provide a process for reviewing and escalation.

The Success Determination clause is tied to Performance Based Payments in which the Contracting Officer has sole authority to approve or deny as standard practice. Any issues with challenges in adverse success determination will be handled by FAR 52.233-1, Disputes.

33. DRFP Section I - 52.237-3 Continuity of Services. Recommend NASA review for applicability to acquisition.

The Government does not anticipate difficulties during the transition from one contractor to another or to the Government. Therefore, while FAR 52.237-3 Continuity of Services was reviewed for applicability, its inclusion was not appropriate for this acquisition.

34. DRFP Section H, NFS 1852.235-71 ESSENTIAL PERSONNEL AND FACILITIES - The solicitation identifies the Chief Financial/Revenue Officer as Essential Personnel. Request the Government please clarify whether this refers to the Contractor's corporate CFO (or equivalent corporate executive) serving in an essential personnel capacity for the contract, or whether the Government intends for the Chief Financial/Revenue Officer to be an on-contract Essential Person dedicated to contract performance.

The Chief Financial/Revenue Officer should the Chief Financial or Revenue Officer for the company who oversees financial contract performance and can attest to submitted financial deliverables, but does not have to be dedicated full time to contract performance or be at the highest (corporate) level, and may be assigned at the Program or Directorate level.

35. DRFP - The heading "PART III – ATTACHMENTS SECTION J–ATTACHMENTS" appears at the top of pages which are not part of the Section J attachments. This creates confusion. Please amend the RFP section headers to remove this text when it is not applicable.

NASA will update the header in the final RFP.

36. DRFP - Many sections of the draft request for proposal are scanned images, which cannot be searched. In the final request for proposals, please provide a fully searchable document.

NASA is working to eliminate where possible unsearchable sections of the Final RFP but may not be able to eliminate them all.

37. DRFP Section J, LIST OF ATTACHMENTS - Minor administrative correction: The Section List of Attachments is missing J-19 and J-20.

This will be corrected in the Final RFP.

38. DRFP Section H, TASK ORDERING PROCEDURES – SUPPLEMENT - NASA plans to award "up to two" CLIN 1 contracts and compete CLIN 2 among CLIN 1 holders. Will NASA confirm the anticipated number of CLIN 2 and CLIN 3 awards, and whether a single-provider outcome is within scope?

NASA anticipates one or more awardees for CLIN 2 and CLIN 3 awards. However, based on the current budget profile, NASA expects to award only one Contractor the Task Order for CLIN 2 and CLIN 3 but will finalize this decision as part of the RFTOP. However, if the NASA budget allows, NASA may award to more than one contractor Task Orders for CLIN 2 and 3.

39. DRFP - Ensure non-NASA customers have fair access on a competitive basis to station resources and services.

NASA has updated the Statement of Work to remove some language related to NASA Priority and first rights of refusal to clarify this area. For some areas where NASA has high usage needs, the Contractor is responsible for scoping the station to allow for additional resources for non-NASA customers. In general NASA’s minimum requirements for on orbit station use are defined at approximately 50% of the overall capability based on a purchase of two seats to allow for non- NASA customers.

40. DRFP - Publish a CLD program roadmap and ISS-offramp with milestones for ISS deorbit, station certification, and commercial operations.

This is outside the scope of the RFP but is being worked by NASA in general.

41. DRFP - Explicitly encourage multiple station architectures and business models to avoid single point dependency.

The Final RFP provides for significant amount of flexibility in the Offeror’s approach and architecture. Although NASA recognizes the benefits of competition in the current acquisition approach, NASA may need to award to one provider in response to the CLIN 2 RFTOP due to budget constraints but has the contractual flexibility to award to more if budget allows.

42. DRFP - Ensure that interoperability and open interface standards are part of the CLD program.

With the goal of multiple commercial stations, ensuring the stations can operate within a broader commercial ecosystem will become increasingly important.

NASA has recognized this need and has already included a number of requirements to ensure interoperability between Transportation and Destination interfaces and Exploration systems where practicable without reducing industry’s ability to be innovative.

43. DRFP - Third-party private capital is largely on the sidelines now due to uncertainty in NASA’s long-term commitment to private space stations. We strongly recommend NASA move toward awards and/or contract executions as soon as NASA reasonably can, to avoid momentum loss.

NASA recognizes this risk and is working to release the Final RFP as soon as possible.

44. DRFP - We believe that the two-phase approach in the current RFP should be replaced by an upfront selection of at least two, and potentially three endorsed providers, utilizing Space Act Agreements rather than FAR part 15.

Space Act Agreements (SAAs) are designed for collaborative, non-procurement partnerships where NASA does not acquire goods or services for direct government use. For the CLDC (Commercial Low-Earth Orbit Destination Contract), NASA’s requirements are fundamentally acquisition-driven:

NASA is seeking to procure end-to-end commercial LEO transportation and destination services, with firm deliverables, pricing, and performance standards. SAAs lack the structure, pricing controls, and accountability mechanisms required for an activity of this scale and complexity, and they do not provide NASA with the contractual leverage to ensure delivery, performance, or compliance with federal contracting requirements. Additionally, services for the direct benefit of the United States Government must utilize a procurement contract under 31 U.S.C. § 6303.

45. DRFP - Some template pages still show the prior solicitation number 80JSC025R001 instead of the current 80JSC026R0021 (or is it 80JSC026R021DRFP?).

Ask: Please correct for consistency across the package.

NASA will update the template pages at final RFP to correct.

46. DRFP Section H, SUCCESS DETERMINATION - Feedback: The success clause criteria are broad and vague; it appears that anything can require the government's approval. Particular portions should be analyzed to assure that an "all or nothing" system is not in place. Examples include: "The total payment price and milestone percentage of the Post Increment Review (PIR) shall be defined upon submission of the contractors Mission Service Work Plan in accordance with Attachment J-12 Mission Service Work Plan Template."

Ask: "Remove "If NASA informs the Contractor of a Partial Success or Failure, NASA will withhold the payment for PIR milestone and may further utilize the submittal of DRD CLDC-205, Post Increment Report, other relevant data, and if activated, findings from the Contractor-chaired investigation board to complete its final assessment. The Contracting Officer shall submit a final determination within ninety (90) calendar days from the Contracting Officers initial determination of a Partial Success or Failure. In the event it is determined that the PIR objectives are a Failure in accordance with the success criteria, the PIR milestone payment shall be forfeited by the Contractor and is not recoupable."

The Success Criteria for each mission will be established at the detailed level on a Task Order basis through the work plan based on the objectives of the mission. The Government has kept the language in the final RFP to explain the detailed process if there is a success or failure as it details the timeline which are important if there is a partial success or failure.

47. DRFP Section H, ADJUSTMENTS TO LAUNCH SCHEDULE states: "The standard launch window will be defined by NASA establishing the initial window for each mission at ATP." This does not give the Contractor the flexibility to consider other customer needs in setting a launch window. In order to be responsive to the market in a commercial enterprise, the Contractor should set the initial window jointly with NASA.

The establishment of the launch window will be jointly agreed to as long as it meets scope of the contract providing NASA continuous services in LEO.

48. DRFP Section D, PACKING AND MARKING - Ask: This appears to cover equipment/hardware delivered to the government by the Offeror. What hardware is intended to be delivered to the government?

The prescription of this clause is required for contracts that include the clause 52.245-1, Government Property or require the delivery of supplies. The purpose of this clause in this contract is to support the need for Government Property.

49. DRFP Section I, CONTRACT CLAUSES - Application of 52.246-25 is appreciated.

Ask: Request consideration of application of 52.246-24 for high-value item limitation of liability.

FAR 52.246-24, Limitation of Liability- High Value Items is applicable when delivering high value…