APP B Q and A.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 27 KB Posted
- Attached to
- NextSTEP-3 Appendix B: Moon Base Demonstrations
- Solicitation number
- M2M-MSFC-0001
About this file
This file is a Questions and Answers (Q&A) document accompanying NASA's Moon to Mars NextSTEP-3 Appendix B solicitation (80MSFC26R0003). The Q&A addresses industry inquiries regarding the acquisition structure, MATOC (Multiple Award Task Order Contract) participation, evaluation criteria, and program mechanics. Key points include: the solicitation establishes a MATOC vehicle with no predetermined limit on the number of awardees, with NASA anticipating a combined maximum contract value of $500 million over five years; only MATOC holders are eligible to compete for directed-topic calls, though open-topic opportunities are available to any qualified organization; MATOC awards will be Firm-Fixed Price Task Orders with performance-based milestone payments; proposal due date is February 20, 2026, at 5:00 p.m. CST; and NASA anticipates issuing a minimum of 2-4 directed-topic calls annually with task order performance periods ranging from 3-12 months for concept development work to 12-18 months for risk reduction activities.
The evaluation criteria for MATOC awards include technical capability, past performance, and organizational factors, with each subfactor worth a maximum of 500 points (1,000 total). Past performance references may include commercial contracts, government contracts, subcontracts, and current ongoing work within a five-year period, with no minimum performance history required for startup companies or those without federal contracting experience. Offerors may propose subcontractors to fill capability gaps, including FFRDCs, though two separate MATOC awardees cannot jointly bid for a single directed-topic call task order. Corporate contributions are optional and not required for initial MATOC awards. NASA will conduct annual on-ramp evaluations for new MATOC membership and intends to announce upcoming directed-topic calls early to enable planning. Virtual meeting attendance is permitted, with additional parameters to be provided post-award. The Q&A clarifies that partnership strategy is optional for MATOC proposals but required for directed-topic and open-topic opportunity proposals, and that NASA will ensure task orders result in distinct, non-duplicative technical efforts across awarded contracts.
View the file
Other files
Show all 18
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Questions | Answers | ||
| Industry day and high level questions | |||
| 1 | Do you have the sam.gov solicitation number | The solicitation number is 80MSFC26R0003. | |
| 2 | Will we be able to access industry day slides soon? | The Industry Day charts were uploaded to SAM.gov on Wednesday, January 28. | |
| 3 | Will a recording be posted? | The Industry Day video was uploaded to SAM.gov on Wednesday, January 28. | |
| 4 | Does NASA plan to post the slides from the Industry Day on SAM.gov? If so, by what date does NASA expect to post these? | The Industry Day slides were uploaded to SAM.gov on Wednesday, January 28. | |
| 5 | How does NASA envision industry studies feeding into future ACR cycles or ADD updates? | The studies will advance understanding of future capabilities in a coordinated effort between government and industry. NASA envisions this resulting in better investment decisions that are reflected in the ADD as those investments mature. | |
| 6 | Could NASA identify specific gaps from the latest ADD (ESDMD-001 Revision C or most recent) that may be addressed by NextSTEP-3 Appendix B studies? | The full range of needs expressed in the M2M architecture may be pulled upon for Appendix B studies. In particular, at Industry Day, NASA emphasized unallocated functions, data gaps, technology gaps, and any other expressed needs described in the ADD that may be targets for future studies or areas of interest for open-topic opportunities. | |
| 7 | Are there any planned standards development activities or interfaces (e.g., for habitation, CONOPS, or science payloads) that NASA anticipates prioritizing for study under this program? | Yes, that is in consideration. | |
| 8 | Please confirm in the final solicitation that NASA meetings can be conducted virtually. Also, please provide parameters regarding meeting duration and number of required attendees. | Virtual attendance is an option. Awardees will receive additional information following the award. | |
| 9 | Is there a budget cap for Directed-Topic Calls or Open-Topic Opportunities? | Funding has not been finalized and is dependent on funds availability and the overall Appendix B strategy. The Government anticipates the combined maximum contract value of $500M during the next five years. | |
| 10 | Section 2.1 in the draft solicitation acknowledges that a separate contracting mechanism would be utilized for any potential award of a follow-on system development, operational, or services contract. Can NASA confirm intent would be to solicit and procure any such activity via full and open competition, and that efforts conducted under this appendix are not intended to be used as the basis to restrict competition for follow-on development efforts? | Yes, to both questions but the ability to compete those future requirements may be affected by the data rights that come with the Appendix B deliverables. | |
| 11 | Please update the heading text under 4.3 of the Table of Contents. | The final solicitation reflects this change. | |
| MATOC General Questions | |||
| 12 | Would like to learn more about the process for our company to become a MATOC member | The Government anticipates conducting evaluations of on-ramp proposals on a yearly basis. Proposals shall be submitted in accordance with Section 5.2, "MATOC Submission Instructions." | |
| 13 | How do we get into the MATOC pool? | The Government anticipates conducting evaluations of on-ramp proposals on a yearly basis. Proposals shall be submitted in accordance with Section 5.2, "MATOC Submission Instructions." | |
| 14 | How are MATOC and RTOP proposals to be submitted; directions are not included in the draft release? | Proposals shall be submitted in response to the solicitation that will be posted by 1/30. Details on proposal submission is in Section 5.2. | |
| 15 | "Interested Offerors should review the full BAA requirements and submit complete proposals by 5:00 CST on February 20, 2026, to be considered for contract awards under this multiple award vehicle." Please consider allowing for a more standard 30-day solicitation timeframe to provide sufficient time for offerors to put together a quality response, and their customers to return the requested PPQ forms. | ||
| Proposal due date is stated in Section 3.3 of the solicitation. | |||
| 16 | Section 4.4 Open-Topic Opportunities states: “Offerors receiving standalone contracts, who wish to be included under the MATOC will have on-ramp eligibility. To initiate the on-ramp process, the Offeror’s proposal must indicate a desire for MATOC membership.” What is the MATOC on-ramp process for organizations once awarded open-topic standalone contracts? Will open-topic proposals be used as the basis for MATOC on-ramp or will a separate proposal be necessary? | The final solicitation has been updated to remove on-ramping as part of an Open-Topic Opportunity. The Government anticipates conducting on-ramping opportunities on a yearly basis using the standard MATOC proposal described in Section 5.2, "MATOC Submission Instruction." | |
| 17 | How frequently does NASA anticipate conducting MATOC vendor management reviews or on-ramp opportunities for the contract? | The Government anticipates conducting evaluations of on-ramp proposals on a yearly basis. | |
| 18 | Is there a limit to the number of MATOC members you will select? | ||
| No, there is no set limit on the number of companies awarded to the MATOC pool. The Government will evaluate each proposal submitted and make awards in accordance with the stated evaluation criteria in the solicitation. The Government reserves the right to make multiple awards, a single award, or no award as determined to be in the best interest of the Government. Award is subject to availability of funds. | |||
| 19 | Are there any limitations to the number of companies that can join the MATOC pool | No, there is no set limit on the number of companies awarded to the MATOC pool. The Government will evaluate each proposal submitted and make awards in accordance with the stated evaluation criteria in the solicitation. The Government reserves the right to make multiple awards, a single award, or no award as determined to be in the best interest of the Government. Award is subject to availability of funds. | |
| 20 | Is there an upper limit on how many MATOCs will be awarded? If so, how many are anticipated? | No, there is no set limit on the number of companies awarded to the MATOC pool. The Government will evaluate each proposal submitted and make awards in accordance with the stated evaluation criteria in the solicitation. The Government reserves the right to make multiple awards, a single award, or no award as determined to be in the best interest of the Government. Award is subject to availability of funds. | |
| 21 | Is there a cap on the number of MATOC awards? | No, there is no set limit on the number of companies awarded to the MATOC pool. The Government will evaluate each proposal submitted and make awards in accordance with the stated evaluation criteria in the solicitation. The Government reserves the right to make multiple awards, a single award, or no award as determined to be in the best interest of the Government. Award is subject to availability of funds. | |
| 22 | What is the anticipated number of MATOC awards (or target vendor pool size)? | There is no set limit on the number of companies awarded to the MATOC pool. The Government will evaluate each proposal submitted and make awards in accordance with the stated evaluation criteria in the solicitation. The Government reserves the right to make multiple awards, a single award, or no award as determined to be in the best interest of the Government. Award is subject to availability of funds. | |
| 23 | What is the maximum total award pool available for FY26 task orders | The Government reserves the right to determine the award strategy in the best interest of the Government. Any award is subject to successful negotiations and the availability of funds. The Government anticipates the combined maximum contract value of $500M during the next five years. | |
| 24 | Is there any guidance NASA can provide on the expected/approximated funding levels for each type of a proposed project? | Funding levels for each activity have not been finalized and are dependent on funds availability and the overall Appendix B strategy. Please refer to the expected timeline discussion above. | |
| 25 | Please confirm that all deliverables expected under the minimum award are included in the bulleted list at the top of page 13. | Yes. | |
| 26 | Please confirm in the final Solicitation that the kickoff meeting under the minimum award can be conducted virtually. Also, please provide parameters regarding meeting duration and number of required attendees. | Virtual attendance is an option. Awardees will receive additional information following the award. | |
| 27 | Can a MATOC holder apply to zero Directed-Topic Calls in the case that none appear to be a good fit? | MATOC holders will have the option to propose for directed-topic calls, but do not have to propose to all of them if they are not of interest for that MATOC member. | |
| 28 | If an organization has previously conducted some analysis related to a known technical risk and developed insights that may be relevant to an upcoming task order, is there a way to bring the results of the studies to your program office's attention and potentially discuss additional efforts? (question anonymized) |
Those with specific work in mind related to the anticipated RTOPs, please review the RTOP content when posted after MATOC awards are made to determine whether the work you would like to propose matches the scope or scale of the Task Order. Please keep in mind that work areas at multiple maturity levels addressing concept development studies and risk reduction efforts may be described in the RTOP descriptions. Offerors interested in anticipated directed-topic calls are encouraged to apply for initial MATOC awards.
| Teaming Questions: | |||
| 29 | If a company's planned response to the first RTOP is as a prime with subcontractors, should the prime submit a MATOC that includes the subcontractors, or should each participant submit a MATOC then join up for a particular RTOP, or should they take both approaches? | NASA cannot direct offerors on how to propose. Only MATOC awardees are permitted to compete for directed-topic call task orders issued under the MATOC. Two separate MATOC awardees cannot submit a joint bid for a directed-topic call task order as the joint bid would count as a separate entity. It is up to each offeror as to how they want to structure their MATOC proposal while complying with the requirements of the BAA. | |
| 30 | FFRDC's are not permitted to submit as primes but can participate as subcontractors. If an FFRDC is a subcontractor, how does NASA plan handle their participation? Will NASA coordinate with and directly fund them or will funds pass through the prime? The NextSTEP-3 Omnibus only address how the value of an FFRDC needs to be treated relative to corporate contributions. | If the FFRDC is a subcontractor for the Prime, the Prime has privity of contract and is their business partner. NASA does not have privity with the FFRDC in this situation and therefore will only communicate with the prime. Funds to an subcontractor would flow through the prime. | |
| 31 | Can a MATOC awardee propose to a Directed-call with another MATOC awardee? | Two separate MATOC awardees cannot submit a joint bid for a directed-topic RTOP as the joint bid would count as a separate entity. Two possible methods for companies to structure their bids to allow for teaming may include: |
(1) One MATOC awardee can add another MATOC awardee as a subcontractor to its team to compete for a Task order.
(2) Companies interested in teaming can form a joint venture (JV) and compete for a MATOC award in the name of the JV. Once that JV has a MATOC award, it can compete for future task orders
| 32 | Can a MATOC awardee propose to a Directed-call with a non-MATOC entity? | Yes. This may be done to fill a capability gap or enhance the prime contractor’s chances of competing for future Task Orders under the MATOC. Among other things, the Contracting Officer (CO) will need to ensure compliance with FAR 44.201 “Consent and Advance Notification Requirements”. Please consult with the CO if you have questions. | |
| 33 | If a proposer isn't accepted in the initial MATOC pool, can the proposer join as a subcontractor to an entity that was awarded a MATOC? | Yes. This may be done to fill a capability gap or enhance the prime contractor’s chances of competing for future Task Orders under the MATOC. Note that the Contracting Officer (CO) will need to ensure compliance with FAR 44.201 “Consent and Advance Notification Requirements” for subcontracts. | |
| 34 | Can a prime contractor, onboarded to MATOC alone, add teaming partners for specific directed-call or open-topic opportunities? Or, must all teaming partners be identified at MATOC on-ramping? Suggest enabling contractors to add teaming partners on a per-task order basis, rather than requiring that all possible teams be formed at the outset of the program given the likely variability of RTOP area outcomes. | Yes. Subcontractors may added to fill a capability gap or enhance the prime contractor’s chances of competing for future Task Orders under the MATOC. Note that two separate MATOC awardees cannot submit a joint bid for a directed task order as the joint bid would count as a separate entity. It is up to each offeror as to how they want to structure their MATOC proposal while complying with the requirements of the BAA. When adding team members for an RTOP proposal, the Contracting Officer (CO) will need to ensure, among other things, compliance with FAR 44.201 “Consent and Advance Notification Requirements” for subcontracts. | |
| 35 | Can a MATOC member be awarded a prime contract to a topic call and also perform as a subcontractor on a contract under the same topic call? (FAQ #14) | Yes. Please ensure that the work on the two efforts is not identical. The Government intends to ensure that task orders awarded under this MATOC result in distinct, non-duplicative technical efforts that maximized value to the Government. | |
| MATOC Submission Materials/Evaluation Factor Questions: | |||
| 36 | If you do not have customer feed back in the PPQ format, can we use customer satisfaction feedback in our format? Will it be considered Valid? | Yes, that is considered valid. If an offeror does not have past performance feedback in the PPQ format, the offeror may submit other official performance documentation that contains the same information as the PPQ such that NASA is able to evaluate in accordance with the solicitation (covers all required submission data described 5.4.1.4.2 which will be evaluated against subfactor described in 6.2.1.1.2), then that would be acceptable. | |
| 37 | "The Offeror may provide the attached Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) form Attachment C to each of their identified references. " Please confirm whether the PPQs are required for a MATOC proposal. The use of the word "may" suggests that it is optional. | ||
| The PPQ format is optional. If an offeror does not have past performance feedback in the PPQ format, the offeror may submit other official performance documentation that contains the same information as the PPQ such that NASA is able to evaluate in accordance with the solicitation (covers all required submission data described 5.4.1.4.2 which will be evaluated against subfactor described in 6.2.1.1.2), then that would be acceptable. | |||
| 38 | "The Offeror may provide the attached Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) form Attachment C to each of their identified references. " In lieu of providing past performance questionnaires for offerors' customers to fill out, please consider allowing offerors to provide Federal Procurement Dara System (FPDS) printouts of their past performance contracts for consideration. | ||
| The PPQ format is optional. If an offeror does not have past performance feedback in the PPQ format, the offeror may submit other official performance documentation that contains the same information as the PPQ such that NASA is able to evaluate in accordance with the solicitation (covers all required submission data described 5.4.1.4.2 which will be evaluated against subfactor described in 6.2.1.1.2), then that would be acceptable. | |||
| 39 | In evaluating past performance (max 5 references), how heavily will the Government rely on CPARS vs. submitted narratives/PPQs, especially for non-NASA or commercial work? | The PPQ format is optional. If an offeror does not have past performance feedback in the PPQ format, the offeror may submit other official performance documentation that contains the same information as the PPQ such that NASA is able to evaluate in accordance with the solicitation (covers all required submission data described 5.4.1.4.2 which will be evaluated against subfactor described in 6.2.1.1.2), then that would be acceptable. NASA will consider PPQ and CPARS submissions in making its determination. Both submissions should be viewed as equally important in terms of weight. |
The solicitation reference "or other agreements" which can include other contract performance beyond government contracts so long as the past performance is relevant to the current effort. See Section 6.2.1.1.2 for the evaluation criteria.
| 40 | When requesting information in Section 5.2.1.4.2, are CPARs sufficient enough? | If an offeror does not have past performance feedback in the PPQ format, the offeror may submit other official performance documentation that contains the same information as the PPQ such that NASA is able to evaluate in accordance with the solicitation (covers all required submission data described 5.4.1.4.2 which will be evaluated against subfactor described in 6.2.1.1.2), then that would be acceptable. |
| 41 | Relative to the past performance content, if a past contract is started greater than five years ago, but completed less than five years ago, is that effort valid for inclusion? | Performance of referenced contracts shall be limited to that which occurred within five years of the due date for receipt of proposals. Additionally, each referenced contract shall have a minimum of one year of performance within the five-year period. Performance of any effort outside the five-year period will not be evaluated. |
| 42 | Is NASA essentially eliminating startups and companies without existing past performance to get on MATOC? This is detrimental to commercial space industry since being part of such studies is essential for investor confidence and continued investments in New Space companies. Also, many of these companies have invested heavily in Moon2Mars technologies, but don't currently have a government contract that can be assessed for past performance. | No. In accordance with Section 6.1.1.1.2 in the solicitation, "In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance, or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Government will not evaluate the Offeror favorably or unfavorably on past performance." |
Section 5.4.1.5 in the solicitation has been revised to clarify past performance references which now mentions "commercial contracts/subcontracts, governmental subcontracts, and any other agreement relevant to App. B anticipated work". See Section 6.2.1.2 for the evaluation criteria.
43 Section 6.2.1.1 Technical Capability scoring seems to heavily favor larger, more established companies. How will startups without past performance history be evaluated In accordance with Section 6.1.1.1.2 in the solicitation, "In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance, or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Government will not evaluate the Offeror favorably or unfavorably on past performance."
Section 5.4.1.5 in the solicitation has been revised to clarify past performance references. See Section 6.2.1.2 for the evaluation criteria.
| 44 | Could you open the Past Performance criteria to include current contracts? | Yes, that language was included in the final solicitation in Section 5.2.1.4.2 and 5.4.1.5. | ||
| 45 | Should the proposer copy Attachment C criteria for each identified past performance and combine into one document? | Past performance summaries in the proposal are limited at 5 pages. Past Performance Questionnaires are included at Attachment C and are not page limited. Single vs. multiple files for Past Performance Questionnaires is up to the proposer. | ||
| 46 | Recommend that NASA extend the past performance validity timeframe from five years to seven years to include relevant efforts from NextSTEP-2. (Section 5.2.1.4.2) | Performance of referenced contracts shall be limited to that which occurred within five years of the due date for receipt of proposals. Additionally, each referenced contract shall have a minimum of one year of performance within the five-year period. Performance of any effort outside the five-year period will not be evaluated. | ||
| 47 | We recommend that past performance of offeror personnel at other organizations be considered in the past performance subfactor (in addition to the capability subfactor). | Refer to FAR 15.202(c)(3)(iii) procedures on past performance evaluation for allowable personnel inclusion. | ||
| 48 | Will there be a cutoff threshold for evaluation points for selecting MATOC vendors? | No, there is not a pre-established cutoff score. | ||
| 49 | Can NASA provide more granularity on how evaluation points will be assigned for components of each subfactor? | Each subfactor will be assigned a maximum of 500 points, for a combined total of 1,000 points. Refer to section 6.1 of how adjectival rating will feed scoring at the subfactor level. | ||
| 50 | Are part time employees and/or consultants under contract with bidders eligible as listed personnel? | Key technical and leadership personnel are defined as individuals who will serve in primary technical roles (such as Technical Leads, major Subject Matter Experts) and/or leadership roles (such as Study Directors, Project Managers, or equivalent positions) with technical decision-making authority or critical expertise essential for task order performance. | ||
| 51 | We recommend that for process and infrastructure evaluation points, NASA consider that there is no "one size fits all" or "bigger is always better" rule given that there will be task orders of varying scope: 1. | For the processes element of the capability subfactor, we recommend that NASA consider whether the amount and type of processes are appropriately tailored to the types of work for which the company has past performance during its points evaluation, rather than a simple "more process is better" evaluation. | ||
| 2. | For the infrastructure element of the capability subfactor we recommend that the points be awarded based on the fit between the bidder’s typical work and their infrastructure rather than the total size/scope of their facilities. | |||
| NASA anticipates awarding to qualified Large and Small Business concerns whose proposals demonstrate the capability, responsibility, and capacity to perform the requirements of the solicitation. | ||||
| 52 | Please consider moving the requirement to describe the offeror's financial capacity to a section that is not publicly releasable. | Proposal content is not publicly releasable. Offerors are encouraged to appropriately mark any sensitive information, which will be handled in accordance with established data handling procedures. | ||
| 53 | Please clarify whether commercial (non-government) contracts and government subcontracts can be used for the Past Performance section. | Section 5.4.1.5 in the solicitation has been revised to clarify past performance references. | ||
| 54 | Please clarify whether the past performance section should only reference work directly performed by the prime contractor, or whether it can reference work performed by proposed subcontractors. | Refer to FAR 15.202(c)(3)(iii) procedures on past performance evaluation for allowable personnel inclusion. | ||
| 55 | Please clarify whether the Partnership Strategy section is entirely optional. This section uses the word "may," unlike the Statement of Need and Proposed Solution, and differs from the "shall" used in the Open-Topic Opportunity instructions (Section 5.4.1.4.3). | The uses of "may" and "shall" are accurate in these contexts. Partnering strategy is optional for the MATOC, but required for any directed-topic call proposal or open-topic opportunity proposal. | ||
| 56 | Can NASA please clarify the intent behind the following MATOC requirement: "The Executive Summary shall also include a high level description of the proposed effort suitable for release in a publicly accessible archive if the proposal is selected." Our understanding is the proposal to onramp to the MATOC is not a proposal to complete a specific proposed effort; please clarify what description of proposed effort NASA would be looking for. Is a general statement of intended participation in future study calls sufficient? | The solicitation has been updated to remove this language. | ||
| 57 | We recommend NASA scope the past performance reporting requirements to be more relevant and appropriate to the contemplated work solicited under the MATOC. For example, consider removing the requirement to provide detailed budget performance information, which is not relevant to a study contract. | The final solicitation has been updated to remove this requirement language. | ||
| RTOP Questions | ||||
| 58 | Can NASA please clarify the period of performance of the various types of project types listed in the draft solicitation, namely: architecture concept development work, concept refinement, risk reduction activities, and special studies for targeted investigations? | Concept development and concept refinement efforts are anticipated to be on the order of 3 to 12 months, depending on the specific task request and/or offeror proposal. Risk reduction activities are anticipated to be longer, typically on the order of 12 to 18 months. Special studies may vary significantly based on their intended scope. All timeframes are subject to change and also dependent upon offeror proposal. | ||
| 59 | In section 4.4, it states that the "Government anticipates awards with 2-6 months for concept design studies and ~1-year risk reduction tasks" for Open-Topic Opportunity. Will this be a similar period of performance for Directed Call Opportunities? | For directed-topic calls, NASA’s intent for concept development and concept refinement efforts is generally on the order of 3 to 12 months, depending on the specific task request. Risk reduction activities may extend longer, typically on the order of 12 to 18 months. Special studies may vary significantly based on their intended scope. All timeframes are subject to change. | ||
| 60 | Does the government expect to provide reference material for each Request for Task Order Proposal (RTOP) (e.g., requirements document library, standards libraries)? | Yes, NASA intends to provide reference material necessary to ensure informed proposals. There will be an opportunity for MATOC holders to ask clarifying questions prior to RTOP release. | ||
| 61 | Does the government intend to provide more details on items such as HLS, LTV, habitat, PR, landing sites, etc. as a reference library in each Request for Task Order Proposal (RTOP)? | The Government expects to provide enough reference material in the RTOP to define the scope of the requirement and enable informed proposals. For the purpose of proposals, offerors should reference the RTOP material, ask questions when allowable prior to Final RTOP posting for further clarification they might deem needed, and make assumptions for any other information not provided with the posting of the final RTOP. In execution of the task orders, more detailed assumptions or information may be provided if deemed necessary. | ||
| 62 | Does the government intend to specify which meetings are expected to be on-site or virtual in each Request for Task Order Proposal (RTOP)? | Yes. | ||
| 63 | Draft RFTP, Section 5.3.1.5 Price (page 20) instructions require Offerors to provide a price breakdown “in accordance with the price proposal sample format set forth in the NextSTEP-3 Omnibus BAA, Attachment A.” However, we are unable to locate an Attachment A to the Omnibus BAA. The Omnibus BAA, Section 4.1.2.10 Cost/Price Proposal (page 14) instructions on this topic do not reference an attachment, but instead state “see a sample format in the References section of the Next STEP website.” However, we are unable to locate any sample within the references section of the Next STEP website. We request that NASA please clarify the requirement for format of cost/price submission and provide further guidance on where to find the sample. | NASA acknowledges that this template has been inadvertently omitted, will resolve. NASA recommends waiting for the RTOP, which may include a tailored version of this template before you need it for your submission. | ||
| 64 | Will Attachment B be a future RTOP? | Attachment B is a Sample RTOP Description. NASA currently has no plans to issue the Sample RTOP topic as a future RTOP at this time. | ||
| 65 | Does acceptance into the MATOC vendor pool means you have to bid on every directed task order issued under the MATOC? The solicitation doc says if you are in the vendor pool you are "eligible" to bid on task orders which suggests you don't have to bid. Is that understanding correct? | MATOC holders will have the option to propose for directed-topic call task orders, but do not have to propose to all of them if they are not of interest for that MATOC member. | ||
| 66 | Will each directive task order be awarded to a single contractor, or will multiple awardees be considered? | Multiple task orders may be awarded under a RTOP. However, NASA reserves the right to award all, some, or none of the responses to a directed-topic call task order and associated work areas. All awards are subject to funds availability. | ||
| 67 | At what point does the government anticipate soliciting a rate card for any task order, or will base rates be requested at the MATOC level? | Price evaluation will be conducted at the task order level in accordance with Section 5.3 of the solicitation. | ||
| 68 | What is the expected cadence for releasing directed-topic RTOPs after MATOC awards? What are the anticipated funding ranges per task order? | The Government anticipates a minimum of 2-4 directed-topic calls each year, which is subject to change based on funding availability. |
The Government reserves the right to determine the award strategy in the best interest of the Government. Any award is subject to the availability of funds.
| 69 | Could NASA provide additional detail on the scope and maturity levels (CLIN 0001-0003) expected for the first two directed-topics calls? | Attachment B contains a sample task order technical description with expected scope. Each RTOP will contain scope and maturity level expectations for those specific calls. | |
| 70 | Please clarify how work areas will be defined in the first RTOPs. | Work areas will be specified in each RTOP. Refer to Attachment B which contains a sample task order technical description. | |
| 71 | For the anticipated initial calls on lunar and Mars mission concepts (including transportation/trades/risk reduction), are there preferred architectural approaches, constraints (e.g., integration with existing Artemis elements), or evaluation emphases (e.g., strategic alignment, risk management, or cislunar economy contributions)? | Any additional details, ground rules, assumptions, constraints, or evaluation specifics that should be considered in task order proposals are anticipated to be communicated in the RTOPs. Evaluation considerations for task order proposals are described in Section 6.3.1. Any additional potential benefits that the offeror wishes to incorporate in their concept proposals are at the offeror discretion. | |
| 72 | Did you copy this lunar architecture from HBO's "For All Mankind" or did you advise them? Just trying to understand whether life is imitating art or art is imitating life? | The lunar architecture presented is based on multiple years of trade studies and analyses, and current architecture decisions are documented in the Architecture Definition Document and associated Moon to Mars architecture documents. | |
| 73 | For small business or early-stage companies, there may be a growth in capabilities (key personnel, processes, and infrastructure and resources) over the course of the program period of performance. Please clarify how offerors can ensure they demonstrate high-quality capabilities both to meet near- and longer-term RTOP calls given the period of performance of the overall contract, in order to be competitive with larger, more established offerors. | NASA anticipates awarding to qualified Large and Small Business concerns whose proposals demonstrate the capability, responsibility, and capacity to perform the requirements of the solicitation. | |
| 74 | For early maturity levels (CLIN 0001–0002), please clarify how NASA will balance limited Government engagement (i.e., joint working groups only) with the need for Offerors to demonstrate alignment with ADD gaps.(in reference to proposal preparation) | Offerors should reference sources of data provided in the ADD, associated M2M documentation, and the RTOPs (which is anticipated to include additional ground rules, assumptions, constraints, and evaluation clarifications specific to the task order). Additionally, at Industry Day, NASA emphasized unallocated functions, data gaps, technology gaps, and any other expressed needs described in the ADD that may be targets for future studies or areas of interest for open-topic opportunities. | |
| Open-Topic Opportunities Questions: | |||
| 75 | Section 2.2 of the Draft BAA states " Open-topic opportunities submissions with identical concepts as directed calls under the MATOC will not be awarded." Will NASA be forecasting its planned directed calls to help applicants avoid conflicting with an upcoming topic? | NASA intends to announce upcoming directed-topic task orders as early as allowable to enable offerors to plan accordingly. | |
| 76 | “Open‑topic opportunities submissions with identical concepts as directed calls under the MATOC will not be awarded.” Could you please clarify how strictly this provision will be applied to lunar‑surface‑power proposals? | The Government intends to ensure that work awarded under Appendix B results in distinct, non-duplicative, and novel technical efforts that maximize value to the Government. Offerors interested in anticipated directed-topic task orders are encouraged to apply for initial MATOC awards. | |
| 77 | “Open‑topic opportunities submissions with identical concepts as directed calls under the MATOC will not be awarded.” Could you please clarify how strictly this provision will be applied to architectural concepts developed on other NASA contracts? | The Government intends to ensure that work awarded under Appendix B results in distinct, non-duplicative, and novel technical efforts that maximize value to the Government. Offerors interested in anticipated directed-topic task orders are encouraged to apply for initial MATOC awards. | |
| 78 | “Open‑topic opportunities submissions with identical concepts as directed calls under the MATOC will not be awarded.” What definition or criteria does NASA use to determine that two concepts are “identical” (e.g., same technical approach, same hardware architecture, same scope, same performance envelope)? | The Government intends to ensure that work awarded under Appendix B results in distinct, non-duplicative, and novel technical efforts that maximize value to the Government. Offerors interested in anticipated directed-topic task orders are encouraged to apply for initial MATOC awards. | |
| 79 | “Open‑topic opportunities submissions with identical concepts as directed calls under the MATOC will not be awarded.” If a proposer submits a lunar‑surface‑power concept that overlaps substantially with a concept already offered under a directed MATOC call—yet includes additional features or a different mission architecture—would that be considered disqualified? | The Government intends to ensure that work awarded under Appendix B results in distinct, non-duplicative, and novel technical efforts that maximize value to the Government. Offerors interested in anticipated directed-topic task orders are encouraged to apply for initial MATOC awards. | |
| 80 | “Open‑topic opportunities submissions with identical concepts as directed calls under the MATOC will not be awarded.” Will NASA provide a pre‑screening review to flag potential “identical‑concept” conflicts before the formal evaluation, or is the determination made during the final award decision? | NASA anticipates conducting this assessment during the formal review process. | |
| 81 | "NASA will conduct periodic MATOC vendor management reviews to maximize |
competition and innovation that will allow qualified new contractors to join the MATOC.
This process will ensure timely access to specialized expertise, maintain adequate competition, and provide meaningful opportunities for all contractors in accordance
| with FAR 16.507 fair-opportunity requirements." Could NASA clarify the process, frequency, and criteria for the periodic MATOC vendor‑management reviews that allow new contractors to join in accordance with FAR 16.507? | The Government anticipates conducting evaluations of on-ramp proposals on a yearly basis. Proposals shall be submitted in accordance with Section 5.2, "MATOC Submission Instructions." | |||
| 82 | Section 6.1.3 Selection states: “the [Selection Officer]…will select for award one or more proposals that individually each present value to the Government and that optimize NASA’s ability to meet its objectives as set forth in this solicitation.” Does this apply to the open-topic opportunities as well, i.e., does NASA plan to make more than one open-topic award? | Yes. NASA intends to make multiple Open-topic awards. However, NASA reserves the right to select all, some, or none of the proposals subject to funding availability. | ||
| 83 | Section 7.3. Post-Award Progression states: “NASA will use logical follow-on authority to add progressive CLINs under already issued direct-topic call task orders” but does not state if this is also true for open-topic awards. We recommend NASA clarify and state that NASA will also have the ability to add progressive CLINs under already awarded open-topic contracts. | NASA will utilize appropriate contract mechanisms to facilitate logical follow on of open-topic awards when warranted, which may involve but are not limited to the inclusion of options in the base contract, open competition, or seeking justification for sole-source follow-on awards. | ||
| 84 | If a proposer submits to an Open-Topic Opportunity, will the evaluation panel provide the proposer with the same feedback approach that would be provided to a submitted Directed-call? | Open-topic opportunity proposals will follow the same debriefing and feedback as the MATOC as described in Section 7.2.2. | ||
| 85 | If you were awarded a MATOC and are submitting to an Open-Topic Opportunity, will you need to provide technical merit capabilities and past performance as suggested in Section 5.1.1 and follow format in 5.4.1? | Yes. Proposals should include information to allow evaluation against technical capabilities and past performance (similar to the evaluation criteria in 6.2) as described in Section 6.4.1, "Open-Topic Opportunity Proposal Evaluation Factors". The Government will evaluate the adequacy of the Offeror’s technical capability, technical merit of the proposed work, and price. | ||
| 86 | For open-topic opportunities (starting ~2 months post-MATOC awards), what thresholds or criteria distinguish a "strategically compelling" standalone concept from one that might be redirected to a directed call? | Under Open-Topic Opportunities, a "strategically compelling" concept addresses a requirement in the M2M architecture and ADD (typically addressing an unallocated function, data gap, technology gap, or other expressed need) and has high potential to advance NASA’s ability to satisfy or meet that requirement in a way that is relevant to the architecture. The subfactors of Technical Merit factor in Section 6.3.1.1 which are referenced in Section 6.4, "Open-Topic Opportunities Proposal Evaluation and Selection", will be used to assess merit and relevancy of the work. | ||
| Other Questions | ||||
| 87 | For CLIN 0004 (Risk Reduction) activities, what types of NASA facilities/assets are most likely to be accessible via GTAs? Further, please clarify what might be the typical timeline/process for establishing a GTA under this program. | This will depend greatly on the scope of the task order/open-topic opportunity work proposed, and will need to be subject to the type and availability facility requested, NASA's assessment of its importance to the work, and availability of funds. Each one will be different. Early engagement with potential GTA requests is encouraged. | ||
| 88 | The NextSTEP-3 Omnibus (3.2.5) addresses corporate contributions. However, the Draft App B is silent on corporate contributions. Please clarify if any corporate contribution is required and, if a contribution is required, what is the level required and if it is different for large vs small businesses. | Section 8.1: Corporate contributions shall not be proposed for the initial MATOC awards and are strictly optional and made at the sole discretion of the Offeror for directed-topic call task orders and open-topic standalone contracts. | ||
| 89 | Please clarify whether the optional corporate contribution description referenced in NextSTEP-3 Omnibus BAA Section 3.2.5 should be provided in the Partnership Strategy section. | Section 8.1: Corporate contributions shall not be proposed for the initial MATOC awards and are strictly optional and made at the sole discretion of the Offeror for directed-topic call task orders and open-topic standalone contracts. | ||
| 90 | Regarding corporate contributions (optional per NextSTEP-3 rules): could NASA provide additional guidance on evaluation. For example, are they viewed favorably in evaluations for directed- or open- topics? If so, in what areas (e.g., risk reduction testing, partnership building)? | Section 8.1: Corporate contributions shall not be proposed for the initial MATOC awards and are strictly optional and made at the sole discretion of the Offeror for directed-topic call task orders and open-topic standalone contracts. | ||
| 91 | Per the new DoD IP guide, the USG cannot require a contractor to provide privately developed limited or restricted rights data. This understanding was also confirmed in recent discussions with the NASA Marshall legal team. Data Rights clauses should be updated to remove Alternate II and Alternate III. | This long-standing and time-tested framework authorizes the Government to require the delivery of limited and restricted rights data when such data are identified and specified in the contract in accordance with FAR 52.227-14, ALT II and ALT III. See also 52.227-16. Appendix B, through its modified approach to data rights, offers industry greater protection for data developed under the contract when proposing corporate contribution. | ||
| 92 | Is it correct to assume, since the OCI plan is being requested, that tasks will be issued for vendors to provide services to NASA to assist in the development of work statements, technical direction, and system engineering? Is that the concern that drives the need for an OCI Plan or are their other aspects of the procurement plan that necessitates an OCI Plan? | While NASA does not anticipate Appendix B work to involve providing systems engineering and technical direction, preparing specifications or work statements, or providing evaluation services, an OCI Plan is required because conflicts may arise in situations not expressly covered in FAR 9.505 or in the examples in FAR 9.508, and an OCI Plan demonstrates the contractor's understanding of the OCI principles, and the need to have internal processes in place for training employees on OCIs, screening for potential OCIs, resolving or mitigating OCIs, etc. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .