App B Questions_Responses Batch 2.pdf

Question # Question Government Response

Could you please provide additional clarity on the Government's expectations for the Price Volume? As written, the solicitation offers extensive latitude to Offerors to propose a broad range of options and price them accordingly. Is this the Government's preferred approach? For example, would the Government welcome a Phase C only proposal against Directed Topic Call #1, Objective 2.4, which raised TRL from 7 to 8 (i.e., may Offerors propose solutions for one or more non-consecutive phases)?

If Offerors possess technology that qualifies for a later phase (e.g., Phase B and C or Phase C) they may apply to a later phase with more mature solutions. To justify this accelerated approach, the proposal must include documented evidence (e.g., verified test reports, environmental test data) demonstrating that the solution meets or exceeds the required TRL for that phase. The Step 2, price proposal shall include the overall firm fixed price by Phase for the proposed project, inclusive of subcontractor costs, basis of estimate, and key assumptions. A pricing template has been added to sam.gov.

Could you provide more information about what "Hosted/Integrated System (Configuration B)" includes so Offerors can understand what this configuration requires and how to accurately price it? Please clarify the definition and requirements of a "Hosted/Integrated System (Configuration B)."

Unlike Configuration A (which provides all its own thermal management, avionics, and communications), a Configuration B payload relies on the host payload to provide other critical resources. This could include drawing electrical power from the hosted payload's energy storage during shadowed periods, utilizing the hosted payload's communication relay to transmit data back to Earth, or relying on the hosted payload's thermal rejection system.

The offeror should price the development and testing of their specific hardware, along with the estimated effort required to integrate their system with a notional host payload. The offeror should clearly document their Basis of Estimate assumptions regarding exactly what resources (power, data, thermal, electrical) the Government/host-payload is expected to provide versus what the offeror is providing. Offerors must also clearly define the physical resource constraints (mass, volume, footprint) their system will impose on the host delivery vehicle.

Mass envelope (if applicable): In the event that NASA provides the lander, are there defined mass or volume limits that the proposer’s system must conform to?

A mass limitation was only identified for energy storage in the attachment. Further mass and volume limitations may be defined in the RFP.

Attachment 1, Section 2.5 refers to protection of "power generation and thermal surfaces." Please define "thermal surfaces." Do payload enclosures and radiative surfaces qualify?

For the purposes of this call, 'thermal surfaces' are defined as any external surfaces engineered specifically for thermal control, where dust accumulation would degrade their required thermal/optical properties. Yes, both radiative surfaces and payload enclosures qualify, provided the enclosure's outer surface serves a primary thermal control function (e.g., acts as a radiator, thermal reflector, or utilizes specific thermal coatings/MLI).

Section 3.4.E directs offerors to the price proposal sample format in the NextSTEP-3 Omnibus BAA, Attachment A. Please confirm this refers to the pricing template published with the Omnibus solicitation, whether it applies to Appendix B Directed Call 1 proposals as-is or with modifications, and whether it applies at Step 1 (white paper), Step 2 (full proposal), or both.

A pricing template has been added to the sam.gov posting.

Would NASA consider a modular mobile-manipulation platform that has been demonstrated at TRL 6 in terrestrial inspection, maintenance, material handling, and construction applications--but requires additional adaptation and environmental testing for space qualification--as an eligible enabling technology under Topic 4, In-Space Advanced Manufacturing?

In-Space Advanced Manufacturing is not a topic covered under the NextSTEP-3 Appendix B solicitation.

Companies interested in this topic are encouraged to review NextSTEP-3 Appendix A to see if this concept fits there.

How do we know if we qualify for FAR 15.403-2? The solicitation is being updated to clarify the direction related to this question. If this updated does not clarify this question, reach out to the Contracting Officer.

Is NASA open to considering other contract types, such as a hybrid contract approach, with CPFF for development and then fixed price for build and test of the flight hardware?

As defined in 2.4 Contract Structure, awards resulting from this solicitation will be firm-fixed price.

Would NASA indicate to a supplier that they should propose only to a specific subsystem of an offered integrated solution, or would NASA only invite a supplier to propose solely to their white paper submission?

This announcement follows a 2-step process for proposal submissions. In Step-1, interested parties are requested to submit a White Paper. In Step-2 of the process, only invited proposers will be requested to submit a full project proposal based on the white paper provided in Step-1.

Can the Government clarify, does this quoted section mean that because this as a FFP, we will not be required to submit certified cost or pricing data? This is how CLPS typically handles it and we highly recommend it to reduce complexity and overhead. "For Step 2 proposals exceeding $10M, fully certified cost or pricing data will be required to be submitted with the proposal, unless an exception applies in accordance with FAR 15.403-2. "

Contract type is not an exception listed in FAR 15.403-2. However, the solicitation has been updated to state that adequate price competition is expected and NASA does not expect certified cost and pricing data to be required.

(See response to Question 25 in Batch 1 Q&A.)

Regarding §3.4, C. Intrinsic Merit, Item 6, Business Strategy and Commercialization Path (page 9): A widely available source, the PwC Lunar Market Assessment published in January 2026, does not forecast independent commercial demand at meaningful scale before the mid-2030s at the earliest.

i. The report lists five pillars of revenue for activity on the Moon, and every pillar's actual revenue model is anchored to a named government contract or agency (mostly NASA, occasionally JAXA or ESA). There is no pillar in this report where an independent commercial customer is the modeled revenue driver today.

ii. The PwC report was written before NASA’s Ignition event and before NASA detailed its current plans for the Moon Base; however, while NASA’s plans would change the magnitude of the report’s forecast, they would not change the fact that for at least the next five years the government is functionally the only customer for lunar hardware and services. NASA’s public documents (e.g., the Building the Moon Base Fact Sheet) describe planned commercial activity in terms of NASA procurement and demand signaling;

the “lunar marketplace” opportunity for industry is to sell to NASA for its Moon Base build-out. NASA’s shift of the LTV program from a single-award to a multi-vendor, simplified-scope structure illustrates the market-shaping power NASA exerts.

iii. This is a monopsony environment (a market with effectively one buyer), meaning that the size of the “lunar marketplace” is defined by the size of the buyer’s budget (in this case NASA’s budget), and non- NASA investment by an offeror is dependent on clear demand signals from the buyer (i.e., NASA) about its planned future purchases.

iv. We recommend that NASA remove non-NASA “lunar marketplace” analyses from this BAA, as this market is equally unknowable to every offeror (i.e., no one offeror can credibly forecast a monopsony-controlled market's independent size) and is therefore not reliable for supporting selection of the best technical solution to support NASA’s mission.

v. If NASA does not want to remove lunar marketplace analyses from this BAA, then NASA should id tif th ifi M k t R di L l (MRL) f k/ it ti it t ff t Th i

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

Section 3.3. states that the White Paper should include key elements from Section 3.4 in abbreviated form with emphasis on Intrinsic Merit. Is there guidance on which content from the Management and Business Approach section would be best to include in the White Paper?

Offerors should use their best judgment in determining which elements of the Management and Business Approach meaningfully support the concept’s intrinsic merit within the White Paper’s page limits. Only include information that helps substantiate feasibility and credibility; detailed management content is not required.

Is NASA amenable to inclusion of FAR 52.229-3 Federal State and Local Taxes in the issuance of any contract award?

If applicable to the unique contract, this clause could be considered.

Step 1 proposal calls for a Cover Page that includes the content in Section 3.4A. Item 9 in this section asks for total funds requested from NASA. If we don’t know the details about potential GTAs at this time that will not be possible to provide an estimate. Is this information really required for Step 1?

White Paper submissions should provide phase by phase pricing for the full scope of the effort. NASA recognizes that White Paper pricing is not a detailed proposal; however, it should be as accurate and well‑supported as possible at this stage. It is recommended that the white paper address these as assumptions that could get refined during the RFP and corresponding proposal phase.

For the "Note", does NASA mean 2-3kW of continous power generation, or 2-3kW continous power transfer?

The note in Section 2 (Energy Storage) refers to 2–3 kW of continuous survival power transferred to the connected receiver payload(s).

2.2 states "NASA intends to also have Open-Topic Calls available at a later date to allow industry to propose concepts within the topics outlined above that are not part of any prior Directed-Topic Calls included within this announcement." Can NASA clarify if a company should propose a non-power related topic under CLIN 0002, or should we have to wait for a directed call in the future, or an Open- Topic Call as stated in 2.2?

NASA is not currently accepting White Papers for Open-Topics. CLIN002 is reserved for non-flight activities NASA may require related to the awarded scope (e.g., detailed analyses, modeling, etc.). Non-power related topics are not being considered at this time.

What topics are allowable and encouraged under CLIN 0002? Refer to answer to question 69.

What is the NAICS definition of small business for this solicitation per this term? "Appendix D: Small Business Utilization. In accordance with FAR 52.219 9, a subcontracting plan shall be required for the apparent successful offeror(s) with any proposal over $900,000, unless a small business is proposing as a prime contractor. If no subcontracting opportunities exist, the offeror shall provide a detailed statement as to why no such opportunities exist. A subcontract plan, if required, will be requested during negotiations. "

This acquisition is being conducted under the NAICS 541715 - Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Nanotechnology and Biotechnology). The small buisness threshold for this NAICS is 1,000 employees.

Section 2.2 states that all submissions must be valid for 365 days. Due to the volatility in labor and material rates, pricing a firm fixed price contract with a one-year validity can be suboptimal for cost efficiency. Is NASA amenable to reducing the proposal validity length requirement?

NASA has updated Section 2.2 to state white papers and proposals must be valid for 180 days.

Regarding §3.4, F. Appendices, Item 3, Quad Chart (page 10): For the Step-2 submission, a publicly releasable quad chart that includes “funding requirements” is required. Can NASA confirm whether the “funding requirements” will simply be the total award value?

The funding requirements will be the total award value.

Is there a blackout in effect? A blackout notice has not been issued for this soliciation, but could be necessary in the future during direct call

RFP phase.

Will the nature and fidelity of the proposed receiver payload be considered in evaluation, including alignment of hosted payloads with broader NASA Moon Base objectives?

This Directed-Topic Call defines the mission need, objectives, and desired outcomes to enable Initial Surface Power in support of NASA’s Moon Base Program. The evaluation factors are outlined in Section 4.

Appendix B section 2.2 states that “Open-Topic submissions with identical concepts as Directed-Topic Calls will not be evaluated.” We are interpreting this to mean that the same concept cannot be proposed in the Open-Topic Call after being rejected from the Directed-Topic Call. Can NASA confirm that power system concepts that were not previously submitted to the Directed-Topic Call would be eligible for evaluation in the Open-Topic Call? If not, will NASA submit further Directed-Calls for the same power topic under Appendix B through the ordering period of September 26, 2029? Allowing power concepts to be submitted after the Directed-Topic Call maintains NASA’s ability to pursue mature power system concepts that may be conceived after the initial solicitation and protects against a potential lack of available lunar power systems if credible concepts are not identified during the current Directed-Call.

The restriction in Section 2.2 applies only to submitting the exact same concept that was previously evaluated and not pursued under a Directed-Topic Call. Concepts not previously submitted, or concepts that are substantially modified, could be eligible for consideration under future Open-Topic calls.

ISPSIS Revision A pairs each requirement in Sections 3.3 and 3.4 with a corresponding verification requirement in Sections 4.1 and 4.2, specifying verification by analysis, demonstration, inspection, or test.

Will the Government specify the expected form and level of ISPSIS verification closure evidence (for example, a requirements compliance matrix with verification method and closure status per requirement identifier), and will that evidence be requested at Step 2, at milestone reviews, or both? If the form is to be defined in the Step 2 RFP, please confirm.

Verification closure evidence will be required in the form of a requirements compliance matrix. This evidence is required at post-award milestone reviews. It is not required for the Step 1 White Paper.

Beaming configuration and scope (Section 2.2.2): Does the beaming target metric require the transmitter and receiver to be part of a single delivered payload deployed together at the lunar surface, or would a two-payload architecture (for example, separate CLPS deliveries positioned at range from one another) be considered within scope for this Call?

A two-payload architecture (e.g., separate deliveries positioned at range) is considered within scope for this Call, provided it meets the technical metrics and fits within the Offeror's proposed execution plan and budget for flight and coordination for both deliveries by 2029.

DTC-1 §2.3 (Autonomous Cable Deployment and Transfer) specifies autonomous cable deployment followed by wireless power transfer to the receiver payload. Please clarify whether the power transfer at the end of the deployed cable must be wireless, or whether an offeror may satisfy the intent by demonstrating dust-tolerant physical mating connectors (consistent with the connector-focused objectives in §2.5). More broadly, may cable-based power transfer be demonstrated via dust-tolerant connectors in lieu of a wireless interface?

No, the Government's intent for the power transfer at the end of the deployed cable in this section is strictly limited to demonstrating wireless inductive charging.

We’re doing some existing work that runs through TRL 6 with a plan to do a demonstration at the moon in partnership with NASA. Can we leverage that work/synthesize that work into what we're proposing?

Yes, you may leverage existing work to meet the TRL 6 entry requirement and propose the next phase of demonstration (e.g., Phase B). However, NASA will not fund work already covered by an existing contract. The white paper must clearly demonstrate a distinct separation of scope and funding, showing where the current funded work ends and the newly proposed work begins.

Is the 2.1 requirement referring to the size of the VSAT allowing for between 1-10kW at the output to the receiver payload? Is it not necessary to continuously demonstrate the use of 1-10kW but rather just have the capability?

For the demonstration, the system must prove it has the capability to generate and provide the targeted power.

Offerors may demonstrate a lower continuous physical power draw during the flight demo, provided the flight data definitively validates the system's capacity to deliver 1-10kW if a sufficient load were present.

Request clarification of the language in 2.2 as follows:

a.Is the "centralized generation source" the wireless charger transmitter?

b.Is the "power source" the VSAT array?

c.When it says "assume co-located with the power plant", does that mean the transmitter and receiver are both pre-mated and mounted to the lander or does it mean only side of the wireless charger system is mounted to the lander?

a. The "centralized generation source" refers to the primary power plant, such as a VSAT array.

b. The "power source" is synonymous with the centralized generation source, which could be a VSAT array.

c. "Assume co-located with the power source" means the wireless transmitter is physically integrated with or mounted immediately adjacent to the centralized generation source (e.g., on the lander), rather than being deployed at a distance before transmitting. A surface asset (load), such as a rover, would navigate to the side of the lander where the charging pad is located to charge.

2.3 refers to a rover deploying a power cable but transferring power “wirelessly”.

Does this language imply a transfer of power from the lander to the rover via a wireless charger, or does it refer to a rover transferring power to a deployed payload?

If a deployed payload, does the demonstration of stable wireless power transfer to a receiver payload have to occur a minimum of 10 meters from the power source? Does this require the receiver payload to be located 10m away from the power generation source?

The intended concept of operations is for a mechanism to spool out a physical cable 10 meters away from the main generation source. At the end of that 10-meter cable is a wireless transmission node that transfers power to a separate, nearby receiver payload. The final receiver payload would be located at least 10 meters away from the primary generation source, bridged by the cable and the final wireless link.

Phase A lists a target exit TRL of 6, but the directed topic call states systems must be at a maturity of TRL 6 to include in the proposal. Is Phase A assuming maturation of an integrated system to TRL 6 versus component technologies?

Yes. The requirement in Attachment 1 to "bypass exploratory subsystem development" means core component technologies must be mature (TRL 6). Phase A is intended for the maturation and validation of the integrated system or architecture utilizing those mature components.

For the survive-the-night subtopic, is 100W electric, thermal, or a combination up to 100W total? The requirement to provide "≥100 W continuous power to a receiver payload" allows for a combination of electrical and/or thermal power up to 100 W total.

What environmental qualification and acceptance testing will be required prior to the flight demonstration? As noted in Attachment 1, Section 3, testing in simulated lunar environments (thermal vacuum, dust, lighting) is required. Specific qualification testing standards (e.g., GEVS, SMC-S-016) will be defined in Step 2 proposal requests.

In section 2.4.1, what host electrical power may be available to demonstrate recharge following the lunar night? (voltage, current, watt-hours)

NASA does not guarantee a specific host power profile at this stage. Offerors should explicitly state their assumptions regarding required voltage, current, and watt-hours for host-provided recharge.

For systems that demonstrate recharge after lunar sunrise, is NASA expecting a complete recharge within the available demonstration period, or would a partial recharge with validated scaling analysis satisfy the objective?

For the demonstration, a partial recharge is acceptable provided the flight data combined with validated scaling analysis definitively proves the system's capability for complete recharge.

Does NASA have a reference thermal environmental profile that should be assumed for Configuration A (Standalone/Self-Sufficient Payload)?

NASA will provide a reference South Pole thermal profile in the RFP.

Does NASA have a thermal interface assumption or heat wattage and temperature rejection interface to assume for Configuration B (Hosted / Integrated System), or a reference thermal environmental profile to assume if heat rejection is to be part of the payload?

NASA will provide thermal interface assumptions in the RFP. For Step 1, Offerors should reference publicly available data (e.g., DSNE) and explicitly state their required heat rejection interface assumptions in the white paper.

Is a recharge demonstration a requirement, or can an open loop fuel cell to demonstrate “survive the night” be proposed with a path towards integration with a future flight electrolyzer?

Attachment 1, Section 2 requires "re-chargeable energy storage solutions" and demonstration of "successful recharge." A strictly open-loop fuel cell without a recharge mechanism would not meet these objectives.

Is the 100W supplied to a receiver payload the “survive the night” power needed by the receiver payload and no additional electrical power is needed during light illuminated periods, or is the 100W supplied during both light and dark periods?

Correct, the 100W of electrical power can be assumed for dark periods only.

Please clarify what the “combined mass of ≤250 kg” includes. Specifically:

○ Does the combined mass of ≤250 kg include the receiver payload or only the energy storage system?

○ Does it include power conversion electronics and cabling/interface to the receiver?

○ Does it include any deployment or mounting hardware or only the storage system as delivered to the surface?

○ For Configuration B: Does mass allocated to shared lander infrastructure count against the 250 kg? Is the 250 kg allocated solely to the survive-the-night energy storage system? How do we allocate mass for additional components?

The ≤250kg target is a target goal based on anticipated mass constraints for lunar delivery systems. This "combined mass" refers to the energy storage system and any dedicated thermal management and structural enclosure needed. Cabling and any other lander interface hardware needed is not required to be accounted for in the mass allocation. The Government will consider proposals exceeding this mass if the Offeror demonstrates a highly credible path to lunar delivery and exceptional power/mass efficiency.

Would NASA consider astronaut-deployed power cable solutions, given that §3.4.C.4.3.C of the solicitation contemplates crew time for installation?

Section 2.3 requests "Autonomous Cable Deployment." A solution relying on astronaut deployment does not meet the intent of this specific capability area.

95 Does Configuration A preclude astronaut operation/actuation? Deployment and operation should be autonomous.

Must the ≥100 W be delivered at 120 Vdc, or does that voltage requirement apply only to the generation metric (§2.1.1)? The storage metric does not state an interface voltage.

The 120 Vdc requirement applies to all external interfaces providing power to a payload, including Energy Storage.

Is the receiver payload Government-furnished, offeror-provided, or another payload on the same lander? Offerors have the flexibility to define the receiver payload in their proposal. Offerors may utilize an offeror-provided payload (such as a load bank) or propose an arrangement to transfer power to another payload on the same lander. If an offeror proposes utilizing another payload, they must clearly detail the interface requirements.

Please confirm whether 5-10 kW is steady-state demand or whether there is a maximum duration to support the higher power level. Reference text: “Demonstrate successful deployment and continuous power generation sufficient for providing a minimum of 1-2 kW up to 5-10 kW at 120 Vdc to receiver payloads in the South Pole environment.”

The 5-10 kW generation metric is expected to be a steady-state capability.

For the Step 1 white paper (§3.3), must both Configurations A and B be addressed within the 10-page summary, or is that Step 2 only?

Yes, both configurations must be addressed in the Step 1 White Paper. However, recognizing the 10-page limit, rough order-of-magnitude estimates for both configurations is sufficient for Step 1.

Please clarify the expectations for the hardware exiting the different phases. All phases may include demonstration in a lunar environment (therefore, exiting TRL of 9). What differentiates the target TRL for each phase with expected exit TRL?

Operating hardware in a lunar environment does not automatically result in a TRL 9 designation. Per standard NASA definitions, demonstrating a prototype in an operational space environment achieves TRL 7. TRL 9 requires the actual, final operational system to be flight-proven through successful mission operations.

As stated in Section 2.4.2, this BAA focuses on concept maturation, risk-reduction, and prototype demonstrations to inform a future operational acquisition. The target exit TRLs differentiate the fidelity of the prototype and the rigor of the demonstration:

Phase A (Target TRL 6): Validates the engineering basis of a prototype, primarily through simulated environments or limited flight.

Phase B (Target TRL 7): Demonstrates an integrated prototype in a relevant space environment to retire risk.

Phase C (Target TRL 7+): Demonstrates the operational readiness and scalability of the prototype to inform the future operational Moon Base architecture.

Please confirm that the 100W requirement is a scalable objective. For example, Offerors may propose solutions that survive through 300+ hours of total darkness but may not provide 100W continuous power for the first demonstration.

While ≥100 W of continuous power is the target metric, NASA is open to subscale demonstration solutions that may not fully meet 100 W during the initial flight. However, to be considered, the proposal must successfully demonstrate core system survival (300+ hours of darkness) and provide a highly credible path demonstrating how the architecture scales to meet both the 100 W metric and the future 2–3 kW Moon Base requirement.

We respectfully request NASA provide a waiver of the eligibility provision that restricts primacy to U.S.‑owned entities (as written in Appendix B, Section 3.7). The waiver would permit our wholly‑owned U.S. subsidiary, to serve as the prime contract holder even though the ultimate parent company is foreign‑owned, provided that the subsidiary meets the following conditions:

1. Incorporation in a U.S. state and active U.S. tax filing (EIN provided).

2. All NASA‑related decisions and contract administration performed exclusively by U.S. persons within the subsidiary.

3. Full compliance with ITAR/EAR; export‑control licenses obtained where required.

Both the subsidiary and the foreign parent will sign the NASA Ethics Statement and Conflict‑of‑Interest certification.

Justification: The foreign parent brings additional market channels, supply chain depth and financing capacity that can reduce cost and schedule risk for NASA, supporting the mission’s cost‑effectiveness goals and the waiver does not limit competition; any other qualified U.S. entity can still submit proposals.

By restricting all NASA‑related decision‑making and data handling to U.S. persons and by maintaining strict ITAR/EAR compliance, the waiver poses no additional risk to U.S. national security. FAR 9.6 and NASA’s procurement policy (e.g., NPR 8715.1) permit waivers when they do not jeopardize national security, competition, or statutory requirements, and our request includes the required written justification and risk analysis.

NASA has updated the solicitation to the following regarding participation by non-U.S. organizations:

Offerors shall certify that they meet the eligibility requirements of this Appendix and identify any foreign participation. Any participation by non-U.S. organizations shall comply with the NextSTEP-3 Omnibus BAA and applicable NASA policy, including the prohibition on the use of NASA funds for research and development performed by non-U.S. organizations.

Please clarify the eligibility provision limiting participation to U.S.‑owned entities (as written in Appendix B, Section 3.7). Does this restriction also apply to the purchase of commercial goods sourced from non-US companies?

In accodance with NextSTEP-3 Omnibus Section 3.2.1, the direct purchase of supplies and/or services that do not constitute research from non-U.S. sources by U.S. award recipients is permitted.

Section 2 states “offerors may propose fully integrated systems or highly mature sub-systems within the capability areas below”. Please confirm if offerors can propose to a single objective or if offerors must meet all five objectives.

Offerors may propose to a single capability area, a combination of areas, or all five.

Objective 2.1.1. calls out power generation in the 1-2 kW up to 5-10 kW range. Is there guidance available on whether a higher kW solution is preferred with increased risk?

NASA is seeking a balance of performance and reliability. The evaluation will weigh the intrinsic merit of the proposed power output against the assessed technical risk per the evaluation criteria.

Will NASA consider opportunistically flying concept demonstrations to locations other than the South Pole if CLPS capacity on an existing near-term mission (e.g. CS-8 landers) is available?

Demonstrations at non-South Pole locations will not be considered at this moment, as the South Pole environment is critical to the evaluation.

Will standalone technology demos that can fly ahead of the initial power mission to buy down technical risk be favorably considered?

Yes. Attachment 1 asks what could be flight-ready in "2027, 2028, and 2029." Standalone risk-buydown demonstrations flying prior to 2029 are highly encouraged.

Does subsystem validation and subscale demonstration by NASA (for technology now being commercialized by industry) count as sufficient technical validation?

Yes. Documented evidence of validation by NASA is acceptable, provided the offeror can demonstrate how that technology is being integrated into their specific proposed architecture.

When is the earliest you may expect open-topics for the BAA to be solicited? NASA anticipates releasing open topics under this Broad Agency Announcement no earlier than Q1 of Fiscal Year 2027. Future solicitations remain subject to evolving Moon Base architecture requirements and funding availability. Offerors are encouraged to monitor SAM.gov for updates.

Attachment 1, Section 4.A requires offerors to address both Configuration A (Standalone) and Configuration B (Hosted), while Section 3 notes delivery will occur via a CLPS lander or early Artemis system. If an offeror’s concept is highly integrated with the delivery vehicle, or if the offeror intends to provide the delivery vehicle themselves as an end-to-end solution, must they still propose both configurations? Furthermore, how should offerors account for the selection, procurement, and cost of the lunar delivery vehicle in their proposal (e.g., included in the Total Evaluated Price, treated as a Government-Furnished Service, or priced separately)?

Configuration A vs. B - The Government will amend Section 4.A to allow offerors to propose a single configuration (A or B) ONLY if their technical architecture fundamentally precludes the other. In this case, the offeror must provide a technical rationale explaining why the alternative configuration is unviable.

Delivery Vehicle Procurement and Pricing - The primary objective of this BAA is to fund the maturation and demonstration of surface power technologies, not to procure baseline lunar delivery services or fund standard lander development. Therefore:

For payloads relying on a NASA-provided lander: Offerors should not include the cost of the delivery vehicle in their Total Evaluated Price. Offerors do not need to select a specific lander; NASA will arrange delivery.

For "end-to-end" solutions (where the offeror provides the delivery vehicle/lander): Concepts where the delivery system itself acts as the primary power asset are permitted. These generally align with Configuration A (Standalone), as they do not rely on a separate, third-party host for infrastructure. However, to ensure a fair evaluation of the power technology maturation, the offeror must strictly separate the estimated price of the power-specific technology demonstration from the baseline cost of the delivery vehicle and launch services.

ISPSIS Revision A, Section 1.1 states that because ISPSIS is a standard rather than a specification, physical interfaces between loads and power systems are not defined. Attachment 1, Section 2.5.1 refers to demonstrating that physical mating connectors can operate nominally after dust exposure. Please clarify whether an additional standard or specification governs the physical power connector interface for this Directed-Topic Call, or whether the physical interface is offeror-defined.

At this time, there is no additional mandatory Government standard for the physical mating connector beyond ISPSIS. For the Step 1 White Paper, the physical interface is offeror-defined; offerors should assume a physical connector of their choosing to adequately describe and validate their dust-tolerance methodology. For Step 2, the Government intends to define the interface that invited offerors will use as the basis for their Step 2 proposals.

Section 2.1 lists interoperability, described as development of standards to support shared lunar infrastructure, among the activities encompassed by Appendix B calls. Attachment 1's target metrics address hardware performance. Please clarify whether interoperability and interface-verification work is within scope for Directed-Topic Call 1 when proposed in support of a demonstration effort, or whether such work is reserved for future calls.

While Appendix B, Section 2.1 includes interoperability as a broad area of interest for the overarching program, Directed-Topic Call 1 is specifically focused on hardware performance and demonstration. Therefore, efforts primarily focused on interoperability development and interface-verification work are considered out of scope for Directed-Topic Call 1.

(Note: While the development of interoperability standards is out of scope for this call, offerors must still ensure their proposed hardware complies with existing standards, such as the ISPSIS requirement outlined in Attachment 1, Section 4.C).

Attachment 1, Section 2.1.1 requests offeror feedback on the 3000 V, 3-phase, 1000 Hz AC pathway, including engineering implications and evidence-based recommendations for alternatives. Please clarify whether this feedback is expected in the Step 1 White Paper or at Step 2, and whether it counts against the 10-page Section II summary limit or may be submitted as a separate attachment.

Feedback on the 3000 V AC pathway is requested at Step 1. The solicitation will be updated to allow this information to be submitted as an uncounted Appendix in Section III.

Can <TRL6 technology be proposed if there is a low schedule risk approach that meets 2029 deadline? The requirement in Attachment 1 to "bypass exploratory subsystem development" means core component technologies must be mature (TRL 6). Phase A is intended for the maturation and validation of the integrated system or architecture utilizing those mature components. For component technologies below TRL 6, please refer to Appendix A (Lunar Evolving Infrastructure Accelerator - LEIA) for maturation opportunities.

For Configuration A, would the payload remain on top of the lander for deployment or would be payload be placed on the lunar surface? If the payload is placed on the lunar surface, is there any shadowing effects from the lander that should be assumed in the lunar light/dark profile? If the payload remains on the lander, how far off the lunar surface would the payload be deployed at (height of the lander)?

Assumption is that the payload will remain mounted to the top of the lander. Specific height requirements will be defined in Step 2 proposal requests.

Please clarify the eligibility provision limiting participation to U.S.‑owned entities (as written in Appendix B, Section 3.7). If a company implements a documented FOCI‑mitigation plan that insulates NASA‑funded work from foreign influence, would that be sufficient to satisfy the eligibility requirement, or would a formal waiver still be required?

See response to Question 103.

117 Do small businesses qualify for this procurement? Yes, small businesses that meet the eligibility requirements qualify for this procurement.

Do you have to be an existing Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) holder to submit a white paper or proposal.

No, NASA is not longer using MATOC for this acquisition.