App B Questions_ Responses Batch 1.pdf

Question # Question Government Response

Is there a budget guidance or cap for Directed-Topic Call 1? NASA has not established a predefined funding limit for Directed-Topic Call 1. Offerors should propose a price that represents a realistic, best-value approach to achieving the target metrics. All proposed pricing will be evaluated for price reasonableness to ensure that the proposed effort aligns with fair and realistic expenditures.

In Appendix B, Section 3.4 D 6 b, on page 9, are Phase 2 and 3 equivalent to Phase B and C as described in Appendix B, Section 2.4.2 on page 5? If not, please clarify.

Section 3.4.D.6 has been removed from the solicitation

Does the expected scope of work for Directed-Topic Call 1 include Phases A, B, and C, as described in Appendix B, Section 2.4.2 on page 5, or just Phase A?

NASA is requesting technical demonstrations that cover the entire project lifecycle (Phase A-C).

For Directed-Topic Call 1 concepts that require a power receiving payload, is the Offeror or NASA responsible for providing the payload?

For Configuration A (Standalone), the Offeror is responsible for providing the power receiving payload (e.g., a dummy load, resistive heater, or simulated avionics box) necessary to successfully demonstrate the target metrics. For Configuration B (Hosted/Integrated System), the offeror may propose utilizing a NASA-provided payload as the receiving payload, provided they clearly detail the required interface and resource assumptions.

For the Directed-Topic Call 1 Power Generation Concept, where is the generated power to be directed during the lunar surface demonstration?

For Configuration A (Standalone), the generated power should be directed into an Offeror-provided dissipative load or internal energy storage system capable of safely managing the thermal load. For Configuration B (Hosted/Integrated), Offerors may propose directing the power to a NASA-provided electrical bus.

In Directed-Topic Call 1, is NASA asking for proposals for Phase A (Concept Demonstration and Engineering Validation) culminating in a TRL 6 solution only or a proposal for a project from ATP through delivery and operation on the Moon

Reference response on question #3.

Could you please clarify when the Government wants Offerors pricing/bidding against work structure CLIN001 versus CLIN002? Is Directed Topic Call #1 a CLIN001 or CLIN002 solicitation? Will the awarded work structure be open to mutual negotiation or even potentially left to the Offeror's discretion?

Directed Topic Call #1 is a CLIN 0001 activity. NASA is open to considering an alternative CLIN structure if there is a justified need for one.

For proposals that include lunar demonstration(s) under Phase C, could the government please clarify how the costs of launch (and/or lunar delivery) should be included within the proposal?

Could such proposals rely on future CLPS missions to cover the scope and cost(s) of lunar delivery?

NASA will supply the launch and lander for the demonstration. The Offerer should not include it in their pricing.

Will there be an opportunity for industry discussions with the Government after the white paper submission and before the invitation to send a full proposal?

In accordance with Section 4.1.4, the Government may request changes or clarifications in compliance with invited proposers following white paper evaluation for the purposes of clarifying the distribution of work and project schedule.

10 Are subcontractors to be identified under Item 6 as partners on the Cover Page? Yes, other team members includes subcontractors.

Are title pages and tables of contents allowable as uncounted pages ahead of the Cover Page for White Papers?

No, offerors are to follow the structure outlined in Section 3.3 and 3.4.

Are title pages and tables of contents allowable as uncounted pages ahead of the Cover Page for full proposals?

No, offerors are to follow the structure outlined in Section 3.3 and 3.4.

Attachment 1, Section 2.3 Autonomous Cable Deployment and Transfer says, “A system capable of autonomously deploying a power cable across the lunar surface and wirelessly transferring power from a centralized generation source to lunar surface assets.” Should “and wirelessly” be deleted since this is about cable deployment and transfer?

The Government’s intent for this specific capability is to demonstrate a hybrid approach: a physical cable is deployed across the surface (e.g., 10 meters), terminating in a node that performs wireless power transfer to the final receiver payload.

Where can one find NASA’s Market Readiness Level definitions, as it is not defined in the NextSTEP-3 solicitation.

Section 3.4.D.6 has been removed from the solicitation

Will each of the topic areas identified in the Appendix receive its own Directed-Topic Call, and what is the anticipated release schedule?

NASA will periodically release specific Directed-Topic Calls to guide industry partners and promote focused innovation in support of Moon Base objectives. These Directed-Topic Calls are designed to address evolving mission needs and encourage proposals that advance technologies and capabilities critical to lunar exploration. While the topic areas identified outline the general scope of the Broad Agency Announcement, they do not guarantee that each area will receive its own separate call. Directed-Topic Calls may be released for an individual topic area, or a single call may encompass multiple areas, depending on evolving mission needs and priorities. Because the Moon Base program is still in the early stages of defining its overarching program plan and refining its requirements, a specific release schedule has not yet been established.

Does submission to Directed Call 1 limit or preclude the same offeror's participation in future Directed-Topic or Open-Topic Calls with related but non-identical concepts?

Submission to Directed Topic Call #1 does not limit or preclude an Offeror from participating in future Directed-Topic or Open-Topic Calls, even with related but non-identical concepts. Each call will have its own specific requirements and evaluation criteria, and proposals will be evaluated independently against the criteria of the specific call to which they are submitted.

Is there a limit on the number of white papers a single offeror may submit to Directed Call 1? There is no limit on the number of white papers a single offeror may submit to Directed Call 1. However, if multiple white papers are submitted, each must represent a distinct and separate technical concept.

May affiliated entities under common ownership each submit separate white papers as primes to the same Directed-Topic Call, and if invited to Step 2, may each receive a separate award?

Yes, affiliated entities under common ownership may submit separate white papers as prime contractors, provided each white paper represents a distinct concept. If invited to Step 2 and selected for award, each entity could receive a separate award, provided there are no Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI) and the Government determines the awards represent distinct scope and value.

Should an offeror address multiple delivery-vehicle configurations within a single white paper, or submit separate white papers per configuration?

Offerors may address multiple delivery-vehicle configurations within a single white paper, provided they clearly delineate the differences between configurations and fit within the page count.

For Target Metric 2.4.1, what is included in the 250 kg combined mass? Is it the energy storage system and its dedicated thermal management only, or also the receiver payload and supporting structure?

The ≤250kg target is a target goal based on anticipated mass constraints for lunar delivery systems. This "combined mass" refers to the energy storage medium and its dedicated thermal management and structural enclosure. It excludes the receiver payload. The Government will consider proposals exceeding this mass if the Offeror demonstrates a highly credible path to lunar delivery and exceptional power/mass efficiency.

For Target Metric 2.4.1, may the ≥100 W provided to the receiver payload include the demonstration system's own instrumentation, avionics, or thermal management loads?

The ≥100 W requirement is intended to be the net power delivered to the external receiver payload. The demonstration system's own internal instrumentation, avionics, or thermal management loads may not be counted toward the ≥100 W delivery metric

For proposals addressing more than one capability area in Attachment 1, Section 2, will the proposal be evaluated against each capability area individually or as a single integrated concept?

Through this acquisition, Section 2.1 Overview states NASA is seeking industry partners technical demonstrations for 'subscale/full scale prototype subsystems/systems, and seeking industry to inform the Government on the exisiting operational environmental insights as outlined in the Award Phases’ descriptions.' The Government is requesting both configurations in the Step 1 White Paper to broadly understand current industry readiness and capabilities, while maintaining the flexibility necessary to align these demonstrations with evolving Moon Base mission needs.

In accordance with Section 4.1.5, the Government may also select only parts of a proposal for award. Based on what is proposed, the Government may elect to pursue a full system demonstration or a more limited/subscale effort, as well as the value and cohesion of the integrated solution industry presents.

Section 3.3, Section II instructs offerors to include key elements of each Section 3.4 component in abbreviated form. Please confirm whether pricing content (Section 3.4.E) is required in the Step-1 white paper and, if so, at what level of detail: the total funds requested figure only, or an abbreviated firm fixed price by Phase with summary basis of estimate.

In accordance with Section 3.3 Section II, price should be addressed in the white paper submission, in an abbreviated form. Overall firm fixed price by phase is acceptable and basis of estimates (BOEs) are not required for white paper submission.

May an offeror propose and price Phase A only, with subsequent phases structured as priced options? Additionally, please confirm whether "Phase 2 and 3" in Section 3.4.D.6 refers to Award Phases B and C as defined in Section 2.4.2.

White papers and full proposals should address Phase A through Phase C in the submission. Section 3.4.D.6 has been removed from the solicitation.

Can NASA confirm that FAR 15.403-1 and the exceptions from FAR 15.403-1(b) apply to the certified cost and pricing requirement from Appendix B section 3.4E? Since price is being evaluated, awards for this solicitation will result from adequate price competition, which should render this FAR clause applicable.

It is anticipated that Adequate Price Competition will exisit; therefore, the submission of certified cost or pricing data is not likely (FAR 15.403-2).

However, in order for the Government to determine price reasonableness, limitations on subcontracting, and future modification(s) to the resultant contract, the Offeror shall submit Data Other than Certified Cost or Pricing Data pursuant to FAR 15.403-1. The Government reserves teh right to request certified cost or pricing data if the following scenarios occur:

proposed prices appear unrealistic; there are concerns the Contractor may default; and/or if the Government does not receive two or more priced offerors that satisfy the Government's expressed requirement from two or more responsible Offerors competing independently (FAR 15.403-2(c)).

Many contractors in the potential pool for this BAA are Non-Traditional Defense Contractors.

Will NASA use its authority under 10 USC 3457 to treat their offerings as commercial items/services as it pertains to the certified pricing requirement? Using this authority would be consistent with recent Executive Orders pertaining to acquisition reform and would maximize competition to the benefit of the Government since many otherwise qualified offerors are not able to provide certified cost and pricing data.

NASA is considering all options available to streamline the procurement process and eliminate unnecessary requirements. The applicability of 10 USC 3457 depends on the product/service being proposed as the statute allows commercial treatment only when the offering meets the criteria outlined therein. Based on NASA's market research there are currently no known commercial solutions for Directed Topic Call 1 - Initial Surface Power. Should an offeror believe that a commerical exception applies to their proposed solution, such a determination must be fully supported by the offeror with appropriate documentation for NASA’s review.

The overarching BAA describes awards amounts “from under $100K per year for focused, limited efforts (e.g., concept studies) to more than several million dollars per year for extensive activities (e.g., development of engineering prototypes, flight experiment hardware and flight experiments).” A flight demonstration including end-to-end launch and delivery to the lunar surface under Appendix B would likely cost one to two orders of magnitude more. Is NASA intending to entertain white papers/proposals for end-to-end lunar surface demonstrations under Appendix B, costing tens to hundreds of millions of dollars?

NASA will supply the launch and lander for the demonstration. The Offerer should not include it in their pricing.

NASA provides a mass constraint for the energy storage concept in Attachment 1 section 2.4.1.

Can the combined mass of the core power and thermal management system have a mass >250 kg if that system provides substantially more power and the Offeror can demonstrate a credible path to landing the power system? If not, can NASA instead consider a target W/kg mass efficiency target in lieu of specifying this mass limit?

Reference response on question #20

Are NASA Centers permitted to participate as members of an Appendix B proposal team through GTAs or other approved mechanisms?

No, NASA Centers should not participate as members of a proposal team.

Does Appendix B support the use of NASA centers capabilities. If so, what agreement mechanism should be utilized (GTA, Space Act Agreement, reimbursable agreement, or other)?

If an Offeror seeks the support of a NASA Center capabilities they should follow the process outlined in the NextStep-3 Omnibus for Government Task Agreement (GTA). A GTA would be the mechinism for requesting the support.

Should proposed NASA Center participation be identified during the white paper phase? At a minimum, in accordance with Section 3.4.A.6, other team members could encompass NASA participation and therefore be identified in the Cover Page for white paper submission.

Since the white papers are intended to be high‑level, the description of Government involvement may also remain high‑level; if the concept is selected for Step 2, the details and pricing can then be developed with greater fidelity.

Are there any restrictions or limitations specific to Appendix B that differ from the approach described in Appendix A?

Yes, see sam.gov Attachment titled "Relationship to Other NextSTEP-3 Solicitations.pdf."

Section 3.3 provides for White Paper submission at Step 1, with invited proposers submitting full proposals at Step 2. Does the Government require that the team composition identified in a Step 1 White Paper remain unchanged at Step 2, or may an invited proposer add or substitute team members, subcontractors, or implementation partners between White Paper submission and proposal submission?

No, NASA understands that team members may change from Step 1 White Paper submission to Step 2 Full proposal Submission.

Does the Government intend to enable the Interested Vendors List on the SAM.gov notice for Solicitation 80MSFC26R0003, or to host an industry day, teaming forum, or similar mechanism to support the formation of offeror teams under Directed-Topic Call 1?

No, the Government does not intend to do so at this time.

Section 3.3 defines the Step 1 White Paper structure by reference to the Step 2 content in Sections 3.4 and 3.4.A. Two points of clarification are requested. First, Section 3.4.A item 10 requires "Date white paper was submitted and proposal validity date," which appears applicable only to a Step 2 cover page; please identify which items of Section 3.4.A apply to the Step 1 White Paper cover page. Second, Section 3.3 identifies Appendix A (Resumes of Key Personnel) as the only Step 1 appendix, whereas Section 3.4.F identifies Appendices A through E for Step 2;

please confirm that Appendices B through E (Proposed Statement of Work, Quad Chart, Small Business Utilization, Development Schedule) are neither required nor evaluated at Step 1.

1. NASA has updated the validity requirements for white papers and proposals to be valid for 180 days, therefore, indicate the date in which it is/was submitted and confirm the validity date.

2. Step 1 White Paper submission only requires Appendix A, Resumes of Key Personnel. The remaining Appendices will be required for Step 2 Full Proposal Submission.

Attachment 1, Section 4.C requires that all proposed hardware and interface designs comply with the lunar power exchange interface requirements of the International Space Power System Interoperability Standards (ISPSIS). The most recent publicly released revision is ISPSIS Revision A, dated July 2022 (NASA STI DAA 20220009953), posted at internationaldeepspacestandards.com. Please confirm that Revision A is the applicable revision, or identify the document number and revision that governs.

The Government confirms that the applicable standard is ISPSIS, Revision A, dated July 2022 (NASA STI DAA 20220009953).

ISPSIS Revision A defines power quality requirements for 120 VDC and 28 VDC systems (Section 3, "Power Quality Standard for 120 VDC and 28 VDC"). Attachment 1, Section 2.1.1 requires 120 Vdc output for the 2029 flight demonstration while also requesting offeror feedback on a future 3000 V, 3-phase, 1000 Hz AC grid interface. Please clarify whether the Section 4.C compliance requirement applies only to the 120 Vdc demonstration interface, or whether the Government expects offerors to address forward-compatibility against a high-voltage AC interface for which no corresponding ISPSIS requirements currently exist.

The ISPSIS compliance requirement in Section 4.C applies strictly to the 120 Vdc demonstration interface. The request for feedback on the 3000 V AC interface is for informational and forward-planning purposes only.

Several ISPSIS requirements are inherently joint between the power source and the connected load and cannot be closed by either party in isolation. PWR120-1006 and PWR120-2007 (small-signal stability) require that the complex ratio of source impedance to load impedance remain outside the defined Nyquist forbidden zone from 30 Hz to 100 kHz, and the associated rationale directs that the criterion be applied across all possible source and load combinations that may occur, including the failure of any equipment connected to the bus. PWR120-1005 establishes source impedance and PWR120-2006 requires measurement of load input impedance, with the ISPSIS rationale noting that the source-to-load impedance ratio cannot be defined generically and requires a specific design. PWR120-1022 requires fault protection coordination across the distribution system such that the protective device closest to a fault contains it.

For a demonstration in which the power source and one or more receiver payloads are furnished by different organizations, how does the Government expect responsibility for establishing and verifying these joint requirements to be allocated among the offeror, payload providers, and the delivery vehicle provider? Please also clarify whether the Government expects these joint requirements to be addressed at Step 1 or deferred to Step 2.

For Step 1 White Papers, in accordance with the Direct Call Section 4.A., offerors should briefly state their physical resource and interface needs of the lander. For Step 2 Proposals, these assumptions can be further refined, as well as, address the joint requirements.

Section 2.4.1 defines CLIN 0002 (Special Topics) as targeted analytical investigations addressing specialized questions and emerging needs, and states that the work structure will be leveraged across Directed-topic and Open-topic opportunities. Attachment 1 defines target metrics for demonstration activities only and does not describe special-topic scope or exit criteria. Please clarify whether CLIN 0002 efforts may be proposed within a White Paper responsive to Directed- Topic Call 1, either as a standalone effort or as tasks supporting a CLIN 0001 demonstration, or whether CLIN 0002 will be solicited only through separate future calls.

Directed Topic Call #1 is a CLIN 0001 activity.

Frequency selection: The solicitation references International Space Power System Interoperability Standards (ISPSIS) for lunar power exchange interfaces. Does NASA have a preferred or restricted RF frequency band for the Section 2.2.2 wireless power beaming demonstration, or is frequency selection left to the offeror's technical judgment for this Directed Call?

NASA's preferred band is 35-35.5 GHz. Other higher bands may be considered but performance and potential interferences must be identified.

Prior testing evidence: Section 3 states that offerors who have already completed ground-based environmental testing may propose an accelerated timeline with documented evidence. Does NASA require that evidence to come from government-witnessed or accredited third-party testing, or would internally generated test data and reports be acceptable as documented evidence at the white paper stage?

Internally generated test data and reports are acceptable as documented evidence.

Multiple capability areas in one submission: May an offeror submit a single white paper addressing more than one capability area within Directed-Topic Call 1 (for example, both Wireless Power Transfer and Dust-Tolerance and Prevention), or should each capability area be submitted as a separate white paper?

Offerors may submit a single white paper or multiple white paper for Directed-Topic Call 1. Offerors may submit a single white paper addressing multiple capability areas, provided the integrated concept is cohesive and can be adequately and thoroughly described within the 10-page limit for the Section II Summary.

Additionally, There is no limit on the number of white papers a single offeror may submit to Directed Call 1. However, if multiple white papers are submitted, each must represent a distinct and separate technical concept.

Configuration detail at Step 1: Section 4.A asks offerors to address both Configuration A (standalone) and Configuration B (hosted) for the flight demonstration. At the white paper stage, is a qualitative discussion of both configurations sufficient, or does NASA expect quantitative mass, volume, and interface estimates for both configurations at Step 1?

Offerors are asked to outline initial quantitative mass, volume, and interface bounds for both configurations in Step 1. Fully detailed, final quantitative estimates will be required at Step 2.

NASA states that Step-1 White Papers will be evaluated based on evaluation factors which include Price. However, the White Paper content structure does not include a price section or pricing instructions. Please clarify whether offerors should include a price in the Step-1 White Paper, and if so, whether a Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) price is sufficient and in what format it should be presented.

Section 3.3 Step 1 - White Paper Submission Section II., states "reference the content defined in Section 3.4 and include key elements of each in abbreviated form, with emphasis on Intrinsic Merit."

In accordance with Section 3.3 Section II, price should be addressed in the white paper submission, in an abbreviated form. Overall firm fixed price by phase is acceptable. Basis of estimates are not required for white paper submission. White papers should address Phase A through Phase C in the submission.

Please clarify NASA's intellectual property and data rights expectations under this effort, specifically:

a. What data rights (e.g., unlimited, government purpose, limited/restricted) does NASA expect to acquire in technical data and software developed under the resulting award?

b. Will NASA consider proposals that leverage prior NASA-funded development efforts, and are there any restrictions on how previously government-funded intellectual property may be incorporated into a proposal?

c. How will an offeror's use of pre-existing/privately-developed IP and background data be treated, and what protections apply to such assertions?

NextSTEP‑3 Omnibus Section 2.7 provides the overarching guidance on intellectual property and data rights, unless superseded by a specific direct topic call and its corresponding Step 2 RFP.

Is that due date only for directed topic (surface power) and not for open topics, for example, mobility at this time?

Yes, the due date for white paper submission is for Topic Call 1 - Initial Surface Power. Each directed call will contain a schedule for applicable submission dates and associated needs.

Are there limitations to how many white papers a company can support as a subcontractor? No, there is not a limit on the number of white papers a company can support as a subcontractor.

Should white papers only be submitted on the currently solicited topic of surface power? Yes, current whtie paper submissions are limited to Directed Topic Call 1 -

Initial Surface Power

In Subtopic 2.3 Autonomous Cable Deployment, should it be "stable wired" or "stable wireless" power transfer?

The Government’s intent for this specific capability is to demonstrate a hybrid approach: a physical cable is deployed across the surface (e.g., 10 meters), terminating in a node that performs wireless power transfer to the final receiver payload.

In Appendix B, section 2.4.1: "Proposers must determine the optimal number of demonstrations (ground and, if applicable, flight) for each phase based on iteration expected to reach the desired exit criteria" - Does this mean that a proposal could include a combination of multiple demonstrations, including more than one flight demonstration?

Yes, if a proposer determines that multiple flight demonstrations are the optimal, justifiable path to retiring risk and meeting the exit criteria, they may propose them.

Does NASA require these demonstrations to be on the surface or are orbital (LEO or cislunar) demonstrations admissible?

While the broader Appendix B (Section 2.4.1) allows for "lunar orbit or surface" demonstrations, Attachment 1 specifically targets Initial Surface Power. The Overview in Attachment 1 states the objective is a "localized lunar surface demonstration no later than 2029." Orbital demonstrations may be proposed as an intermediate risk-reduction step leading to surface demonstration.

What is the expected maximum Period of Performance? This topic seeks proposals for integrated power systems or critical sub-systems capable of transitioning from ground-based environmental testing to a localized lunar surface demonstration no later than 2029.

Will NASA share the anticipated date for initial award issuance? Page 5 of Attachment 1_Directed_Call Surface Pwr, will be updated to reflect the estimated award date for the first directed call from October 16, 2026 to October 23, 2026.