Updates to CLDC Draft RFP Industry Questions and Answers - Rounds 1 and 2.pdf

Updates to CLDC Draft RFP Industry Questions and Answers - Rounds 1 & 2

Posted on September 21, 2026

Q&A Round 1 Corrections (August 14, 2026):

#88; In DRFP Section H, Associate Contractor Agreements (a): Should the table in this section be populated with "OFI"s instead of "TBD"s? Is NASA or the CLD Provider responsible for filling in the blanks?

The Table is intended to have “TBD”s. NASA will direct the Contractor to pursue Associate Contractor Agreements (ACAs) in performance of this contract.

Q&A Round 2 Corrections (September 14, 2026):

#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 for launch vehicles utilized for commercial elements within the CLDS. Launch vehicles for element launches 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 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.

NASA has updated in SOW 2.17.5 Launch Vehicle Maturity to delineate Element, Crew and Cargo launches by removing Crew and Cargo vehicles from the original requirement.

The Crew vehicle requirement has been replaced with “NOTE: Launch vehicle requirements associated with crewed missions are outlined in CLDP-REQ-1130”;

The Cargo launch vehicle requirement has been replaced with “Launches for Cargo Missions shall utilize launch vehicles for transport of CLDS cargo that have three (3) or more previous successful flights of a similar launch vehicle configuration. The Contractor may request use of launch vehicles with less than three (3) previous successful flights with NASA approval. For approval of use, NASA will conduct an independent risk assessment which will require launch vehicle data including, but not limited to, design, manufacturing and operations, system safety, quality systems/process compliance, flight hardware and software qualification, and launch complex.

#123; DRFP Section L.17.3.3 MS SUBFACTOR 3 – SMALL BUSINESS UTILIZATION (SBU) - Please mandate a NASA floor or minimum percentage (5% recommended) of the total dollar amount for WOSB set asides.

NASA is not mandating a minimum percentage for Women Owned Small Businesses. NASA as an Agency has established a goal of 5% for WOSB however it will be removed as a reference in the Final RFP to avoid confusion and offerors will not be evaluated against agency goals. NASA is allowing offerors to propose their small business approach as outlined in Section L.17.3.3 MS SUBFACTOR 3 – SMALL BUSINESS UTILIZATION (SBU).

Offerors’ may propose goals that are in line with their business model and approach.

Offerors will be evaluated in accordance with M.4.3 SMALL BUSINESS UTILIZATION (SBU).

#155; DRFP ATTACHMENT J-13 GOVERNMENT FURNISHED PROPERTY, DATA AND

INFORMATION - Re: feedback item (h). We recommend that NASA make government-furnished resources broadly and equally available to all offerors - both property and data (Attachment J-13) and subject-matter expertise (through the Government Collaboration Agreement) - as these materially reduce first-of-a-kind development risk. Two categories are especially valuable:- Test facilities and reference data. Large-scale NASA test infrastructure - for example, a thermal-vacuum chamber able to accommodate a full-scale station module a size of a house - is costly and slow for any single provider to replicate, and NASA reference data and standards accelerate design maturity.

Operational expertise. NASA's experience-based knowledge - for instance, the practical anomalies and lessons of on-orbit rendezvous and docking – can be the difference between a successful operation and a failed mission, and exists nowhere else. Providing these on equal terms to all offerors will, appropriately, benefit most those who do not already hold such knowledge or equipment in-house - which broadens the competitive field, strengthens the resilience of the overall commercial LEO portfolio, and puts NASA's unique institutional capabilities to their highest use.

NASA intends to provide support under GTAs and GCAs in a fair and equitable manner among all awardees. NASA has not identified any property currently available for this effort.

Offerors may propose to utilize facilities at any NASA center, or other NASA expertise that is not commercially available through GTAs. NASA is also updating clause H.3 Use of Government Resources to allow for the use of ISS Resources to be included under GTAs.

Examples include use or transfer of on-orbit ISS hardware or the use of on-orbit ISS berthing port. It should be noted that GTAs under this contract shall not include requests to support Private Astronaut Missions or commercial activities currently managed under NASA Research Announcements (NRA) or Center for Advancement of Science In Space

(CASIS).

#209; DRFP L.9 JSC 52.215-126 PERIOD COVERED BY PROCUREMENT - Page 297 [L.9] indicates that this contract is anticipated in running thru 2042. Page 308 [Table L.17.1-1] states that Past Performance Description is limited to 30 pages Page 331 [L.17.4] states "Each offeror shall provide a narrative summary of up to three (3) relevant contracts …Also Offer shall provide up to two (2) more additional narratives for each qualifying major team member, subcontractors, and supplier... defined as those which Offer anticipates having a total contract value of $100 Million or more of the work for the entire contract period" The number of qualifying major team member, subcontractors, and supplier that are anticipated to have total contract value of over $100Million over the anticipate 15 year contract could be 50+. This means that up to 100 Past performance narratives would have to be provide within the 30 pages allotted for the Past Performance narratives. We believe that it will be very difficult to accurately convey the relevancy of each of the programs.

Specific recommendations: 1) limit the number narrative to 3 for the prime and 2 for each of the 5 major team members, subcontractors, and suppliers that are anticipated to have the largest contract value over the total contract. 2) modify the eligibility of major team members, subcontractors and supplier that are anticipated to have total contract value of over $100 Million during the 8-year base ordering period 3) if NASA chooses not to implement specific recommendation 1 or 2, we suggest that the RFP language reflect 2-page narrative for each Past Performance narrative. Note that L.17.4 (d) requires 13 specific items that need to be provided as part of each narrative.

NASA has updated the final RFP to read "Each Offeror shall provide a narrative summary of up to three (3) relevant contracts that are active or were completed in the last five (5) years.

Also, each Offeror shall provide up to two (2) additional narrative summaries for up to five

(5) qualifying major team members, subcontractors, and suppliers. For Past Performance only: Major team members, subcontractors and suppliers are defined as those which Offerors anticipate having a total contract value of $100 million or more of the work during the 8-year base period."

#211; DRFP L.17.4 JSC 52.215-114 Past Performance Information - i. The amount and type of Past Performance data requested and/or the value of the Government evaluating Past Performance for this acquisition, if any. Recommend deleting Past Performance as an evaluation factor and evaluating CLDC proposals based on Price and Mission Suitability.

Rationale: (1) At the Pre-Proposal Conference, NASA stated that CLDC is the “most complex human spaceflight contract to date” [Slide 12]. Because building and providing services aboard a commercial low-Earth orbit destination has never been done before, NASA specifically invited comments on removing Past Performance as an evaluation factor.

(2) Potential CLD providers and their teammates have limited past performance directly relevant to the full breadth of the CLDC SOW. Several areas have little or no comparable human spaceflight experience outside of ISS support, including SOW 2.11, Safety and Mission Assurance; SOW 2.13, certification of human spaceflight systems; SOW 2.14 and 2.16, mission integration and operations; SOW 2.17, transportation, where relevant experience is limited to one certified crew provider and three certified cargo providers; and SOW 2.18.4, crew medical operations. FAR 15.304 permits the Government to select evaluation factors that are meaningful to the acquisition, while FAR 15.305 recognizes that some offerors may lack relevant past performance. Including Past Performance may therefore result in multiple neutral or limited-confidence ratings, reducing the factor’s value as a discriminator. (3) Section M.2 states that Price is approximately equal to Mission Suitability and Past Performance combined, and that Mission Suitability is significantly more important than Past Performance. Past Performance is therefore already the least important evaluation factor. (4) The Volume III requirements impose substantial effort without providing sufficient space for meaningful evaluation. Section L.9 indicates that the contract may extend through 2042. Section L.17.4 requires up to three narratives for the offeror and up to two additional narratives for each qualifying major team member, subcontractor, or supplier expected to receive $100 million or more over the contract term.

Given the anticipated 15-year period of performance, the number of qualifying entities could exceed 50, potentially requiring up to 100 narratives within the 30-page limit. This would not allow offerors to adequately explain the relevance of each contract or provide NASA with sufficiently detailed information for a meaningful assessment.

After careful review of industry feedback and consideration of the unique challenges associated with the CLDC acquisition, the Requirements Development Team has determined that Past Performance will remain as an evaluation factor. However, Mission Suitability has been weighted significantly more important than Past Performance. While industry raised valid points regarding the limited direct past performance relevant to the full scope of CLDC and the administrative burden imposed by Volume III requirements, the Government recognizes that Past Performance, even with its limitations, provides valuable insight into offerors’ reliability and ability to deliver on complex contracts. That said, Mission Suitability is prioritized as the most critical non-price factor, reflecting NASA’s focus on technical and management capabilities essential for mission success in this unprecedented human spaceflight endeavor. NASA has updated the final RFP in L.17.4 to state "Each Offeror shall provide a narrative summary of up to three (3) relevant contracts that are active or were completed in the last five (5) years. Also, each Offeror shall provide up to two (2) additional narrative summaries for up to five (5) qualifying major team members, subcontractors, and suppliers. For Past Performance only: Major team members, subcontractors and suppliers are defined as those which Offerors anticipate having a total contract value of $100 million or more of the work during the 8-year base period." NASA has updated in the Final RFP Attachment L-02 to indicate only specific Statement of Work Sections to evaluate.

#213; DRFP L.17.4 JSC 52.215-114 Past Performance Information - Re: feedback item (i).

Because an ISS-successor commercial free-flying destination is a first-of-a-kind capability, no offeror possesses directly relevant past performance operating such a station.

Recommend that Past Performance be weighted minimally and be permitted to draw on relevant adjacent experience - of the offeror, its teammates and subcontractors, and key personnel - rather than prime-level station-operation history. Over-weighting Past Performance would favor incumbency without predicting first-of-a-kind execution and would narrow the competition among differentiated approaches this program seeks to foster.

After careful review of industry feedback and consideration of the unique challenges associated with the CLDC acquisition, the Requirements Development Team has determined that Past Performance will remain as an evaluation factor. However, Mission Suitability has been weighted significantly more important than Past Performance. While industry raised valid points regarding the limited direct past performance relevant to the full scope of CLDC and the administrative burden imposed by Volume III requirements, the Government recognizes that Past Performance, even with its limitations, provides valuable insight into offerors’ reliability and ability to deliver on complex contracts. That said, Mission Suitability is prioritized as the most critical non-price factor, reflecting NASA’s focus on technical and management capabilities essential for mission success in this unprecedented human spaceflight endeavor. NASA has updated the final RFP in L.17.4 to state "Each Offeror shall provide a narrative summary of up to three (3) relevant contracts that are active or were completed in the last five (5) years. Also, each Offeror shall provide up to two (2) additional narrative summaries for up to five (5) qualifying major team members, subcontractors, and suppliers. For Past Performance only: Major team members, subcontractors and suppliers are defined as those which Offerors anticipate having a total contract value of $100 million or more of the work during the 8-year base period." NASA has updated in the Final RFP Attachment L-02 to indicate only specific Statement of Work Sections to evaluate.

#214; DRFP L.17.4 JSC 52.215-114 Past Performance Information and M.5 JSC 52.215-115 PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR - We appreciate NASA offering a "neutral" past performance evaluation as many of the offerors will have limited directly relevant government and commercial past performance despite possessing the technical maturity, financial resources, and management capability to successfully execute the contract. We recommend NASA removes the past performance requirement as CLDC is intended to foster new commercial space station capabilities without directly relevant existing analogs.

A past performance submission, even with a neutral evaluation, adds proposal burden for both NASA and offerors without improving its ability to discriminate among otherwise qualified CLDC proposals. Alternatively, NASA should revise the RFP to allow offerors to cite internal CLD-related R&D activities as relevant experience.

After careful review of industry feedback and consideration of the unique challenges associated with the CLDC acquisition, the Requirements Development Team has determined that Past Performance will remain as an evaluation factor. However, Mission Suitability has been weighted significantly more important than Past Performance. While industry raised valid points regarding the limited direct past performance relevant to the full scope of CLDC and the administrative burden imposed by Volume III requirements, the Government recognizes that Past Performance, even with its limitations, provides valuable insight into offerors’ reliability and ability to deliver on complex contracts. That said, Mission Suitability is prioritized as the most critical non-price factor, reflecting NASA’s focus on technical and management capabilities essential for mission success in this unprecedented human spaceflight endeavor. NASA has updated the final RFP in L.17.4 to state "Each Offeror shall provide a narrative summary of up to three (3) relevant contracts that are active or were completed in the last five (5) years. Also, each Offeror shall provide up to two (2) additional narrative summaries for up to five (5) qualifying major team members, subcontractors, and suppliers. For Past Performance only: Major team members, subcontractors and suppliers are defined as those which Offerors anticipate having a total contract value of $100 million or more of the work during the 8-year base period." NASA has updated in the Final RFP Attachment L-02 to indicate only specific Statement of Work Sections to evaluate.

#215; DRFP SECTION B – SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES/COSTS, Attachment L-01 Price Template, and Attachment L-08 Business Case Analysis Template - Prices in Section B are to be provided for each calendar year for each mission price starting in 2029 for missions with discounts for bulk buys. Attachment L-01 requires that pricing be provided for Government fiscal years, and Attachment L-08 requires pricing be provided in calendar year. Can NASA please provide clarification on the request, fiscal-vs-calendar? Preference would be to choose one or the other for Offerors and evaluators.

Revised Attachment L-01 pricing, from FY to CY to be consistent with Section B and Attachment L-08. It should be noted that Attachment L-08 Business Case Analysis Template will be combined with the Corporate Contribution Worksheet as one Attachment, which will be attachment L-07 Business Case Analysis Template.

#251; 3102 - The document requires NASA control, approval and review of many things that have an impact on our contractors and suppliers. It essentially gives NASA primary control over design and review, process and decisions on compliance. Technically, the document is OK but just from a program standpoint it changes who is in control. It will/may cause large costs that may not be planned.

Ask: Recommend that the document be tailored to clearly show the provider has authority for approval with NASA participation.

NASA evaluated these comments and will not make changes to CLDP-STD-3102. This document reflects NASA’s joint approval authority with the Contractor for hazard controls and non-compliances that affect the safety of USG crew and assets.

#300; CLDP-STD-3102 - Section G.3 requires the CaTS Provider to submit "a full vehicle and system review" focused on "the launch and return phases." Recommend the scope of cargo safety reviews be reconsidered: during uncrewed cargo ascent and return, no USG crew is at risk, public safety is governed by the applicable licensing and range safety regimes, and the consequence of a cargo vehicle failure in these phases is loss of cargo — a mission-success risk allocated through the Success Determination clause and Task Order milestones, not a crew-safety matter. NASA's safety interest in a cargo vehicle arises in the destination-interface phases (approach, proximity operations, docked operations, and departure), where the crewed Destination is exposed — and those phases are already covered by the Section G.4 integrated Destination safety reviews within the Approach Ellipsoid. Recommend G.3 be rescoped to the destination-interface mission phases, or deleted as duplicative of G.4, with launch and return phases governed by the existing licensing regimes.

NASA evaluated these comments and will make updates to CLD-STD-3102 after Final RFP release.

#412; DRFP - Under TA.2, DRD CLDC-103, NASA Standards and Specifications Compliance and Tailoring (Sections 1-5 only) is listed as being submitted within Volume II and included in the 200-page limit.

Ask: Should this instead be designated as “not included in the page count”? We want to confirm that CLDC-103 will not count toward Volume II’s 200-page maximum.

All DRDs and Attachments (except for Attachment J-11 and J-12) submitted with the proposal will be applicable to the Page Count. NASA has assessed all of the industry comments associated with Page count and has increased Volume I Price Volume narrative portion from 20 to 30 pages and has increased the Volume II page count from 200 to 300 pages, which allows for the inclusion of DRDs, Attachments and other additional pages as needed across all proposal sections. Attachments J-11 Certification Work Plan and Attachment J-12 Mission Service Work Plan Template have been excluded from the page count requirement.

#413; DRFP - Under TA.3, DRD CLDC-129, Crew Code of Conduct is listed as being submitted within Volume II and included in the 200-page limit.

Ask: Should this instead be designated as “not included in the page count”? We want to confirm that CLDC-129 will not count toward Volume II’s 200-page maximum.

All DRDs and Attachments (except for Attachment J-11 and J-12) submitted with the proposal will be applicable to the Page Count. NASA has assessed all of the industry comments associated with Page count and has increased Volume I Price Volume narrative portion from 20 to 30 pages and has increased the Volume II page count from 200 to 300 pages, which allows for the inclusion of DRDs, Attachments and other additional pages as needed across all proposal sections. Attachments J-11 Certification Work Plan and Attachment J-12 Mission Service Work Plan Template have been excluded from the page count requirement.

#414; DRFP - Under MA.3, DRD CLDC-104, Insight and Collaboration Implementation Plan is listed as being submitted within Volume II and included in the 200-page limit.

Ask: Should this instead be designated as “not included in the page count”? We want to confirm that CLDC-104 will not count toward Volume II’s 200-page maximum.

All DRDs and Attachments (except for Attachment J-11 and J-12) submitted with the proposal will be applicable to the Page Count. NASA has assessed all of the industry comments associated with Page count and has increased Volume I Price Volume narrative portion from 20 to 30 pages and has increased the Volume II page count from 200 to 300 pages, which allows for the inclusion of DRDs, Attachments and other additional pages as needed across all proposal sections. Attachments J-11 Certification Work Plan and Attachment J-12 Mission Service Work Plan Template have been excluded from the page count requirement.

#418; DRFP Table L.17.1-1: Overview of Proposal Volumes, Page Limitations, And Format - NASA has identified some DRDs and attachments to be submitted with Volume II and counting toward the 200-page limit (e.g., DRD CLDC-129, Crew Code of Conduct), some submitted with Volume II and not counting toward the 200-page limit but also incorporated into Volume V, which is not page limited (e.g., DRD CLDC-212, Crew Accommodations (section 1 only), and some submitted with Volume II only and not counting toward the 200-page limit (e.g., DRD-CLDC-001, Integrated Master Schedule). Due to the page restrictions and the complexity of the submission, we recommend that NASA simplifies the RFP to have all included DRD submitted in a single separate not-page-limited volume while leaving all existing volume page limits intact.

All DRDs submitted with the proposal will be applicable to the Page Count. NASA has increased Volume II Page Count from 200 pages to 300 pages.