DC-2 Questions and Responses SMS Final.pdf

NASA NextSTEP-3 Appendix B, Directed-Topic Call #2 White Paper Questions and Answers

Question Response

Section 4 describes a Configuration A standalone system being offloaded from the lander onto a mobility vehicle and transported to the element it mates to. Is that surface transport and offload segment in scope for a Configuration A offeror to propose, or is NASA treating it as a government-furnished assumption? We build lunar surface transportation infrastructure and have mating and coupling hardware in a filed application, so the answer decides whether we propose as a prime or team with a habitat element provider.

No, the transport and offload segment is not in scope for Configuration A. NASA is treating this as government furnished. Our current assumption is that the delivery vehicle provides the offloading function and an existing mobility asset provides the transport of the offloaded system.

Our current interpretation of the capture envelopes in 5.2.2 and 6.1.1 is that the mobility asset will place the active SMS docking interface (center point of active SMS mating plane) within a 20 (+/-10) or 50 (+/-25) cm spherical zone of a predefined target point at an angle within 3 to 7 deg of the receiving SMS mating axis. Is that predefined target point at the center of the receiving SMS mating plane, or is there an expectation that the initial, predefined target point will include an additional (e.g. axial) offset that must be accounted for by the active SMS?

You may assume that the predefined target point is at the center of the "ready to latch" fixed reference point, which may or may not coincide with the center of the receiving SMS mating plane, depending on the design of the SMS. The 6-DOF envelope described in the 5.2.2 GRAC is intended to define the delivery precision of the mobility vehicle. Section 6.1.1 defines what the design solution has to do to close the residual gap between the two habitat assets.

Are there any other identified umbilical connections required or desired through the SMS besides the need for 6kW of 120 VDC bi-directional power and data connections?

There are no other umbilical connections required besides power and data at this time; however, there may be a desire in the future for fluid umbilical connections.

Is there any definition of the desired data connection?

The data protocol has not been defined at this time. Offerors are free to propose data connections that are optimized for the particular surface docking system concept.

Can you clarify what is meant by the mobility asset "compensating" for a 3 deg to 7 deg misalignment?

The capture envelope in Section 5.2.2 is only intended to define the delivery precision of the mobility vehicle.

Which Award phase under Appendix B Section

2.4.2 should offerors propose against for this directed topic call, and may an offeror propose to more than one phase?

The objectives outlined in Directed-Topic Call #2 Surface Mating System align with Phase A - Concept Demonstration and Engineering Validation of the Appendix B Solicitation. This call is for ground demonstrations and related deliverables to be completed by September 30, 2027. NASA is only accepting White Papers for Phase A.

Does NASA expect any modifications to the proposal and white paper structure given the nature of this solicitation is ground-based testing rather than a lunar surface demonstration? Or should offerors follow the same white paper format outlined in Section 3.3 of the solicitation?

Offerors should follow the outline in Section3.3. NASA has not modified Section

3.3 of the Appendix B solicitation for this call. Ground demonstrations should not preclude a path forward for lunar surface demonstrations.

8 Does this Directed Call fall under CLIN0001, CLIN0002, or both?

The intent is to issue an IDIQ contract. This scope would fall under the base CLIN 0001.

Is NASA looking for offerors to propose a full-scale demonstration, or are subsystem level demonstrations acceptable to buy down key technical risks?

NASA is looking for Offerors to propose a demonstration of sufficient scale to buy down key technical risks.

What is the anticipated number of awards and funding range for this Directed Call?

NASA does not have a predefined, anticipated number of awards and has not established a predefined funding limit for Directed-Topic Call 2.

11 What award date should offerors assume when building a schedule?

Estimated award date is December 18, 2026.

Should offerors submit a single white paper that covers both configurations A and B, or separate papers for each?

There is no limit on the number of white papers a single offeror may submit to Directed Call #2. Offerors may address multiple configurations within a single white paper, provided they clearly delineate the differences between configurations and fit within the page count.

Appendix B Section 3.7 permits participation by non-U.S. organizations while prohibiting NASA funding for research and development performed by them. May a U.S.-owned prime include a wholly-owned non-U.S. subsidiary as a team member whose effort is funded entirely by corporate resources rather than NASA funds?

Yes, use of corporate resources are acceptable to fund non-U.S. organizations. The funds and scope associated with non-U.S. organizations should be identified as corporate contributions and proof of such expenditures will be requested from the Offeror during performance to ensure NASA funding was used appropriately.

Does NASA consider the purchase of existing, previously developed hardware from a non- U.S. source to be a supply purchase rather than research and development?

In accordance 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.

What export control should offerors assume for technical data generated under this effort?

Offerors should assume it is Export Controlled data under Export Administration Regulation (EAR, commercial) rather than International Traffic in Arms (ITAR, military).

Is there a minimum scale for the sub-scale ground demonstration, or preferred scaling approach?

There is no minimum scale or preferred scaling approach. The scale needs to be sufficient to demonstrate buy down of the technical risk.

Must the ground demonstration include lunar environment simulation (reduced gravity offload, vacuum, thermal, and/or regolith simulant) or is an ambient demonstration of mechanism function acceptable?

Ambient demonstration is acceptable. The ground demonstration does not have to include lunar environment simulation; however, it is desirable to demonstrate sufficient buy down of technical risk.

Does the September 30, 2027, date apply to the completion of the demonstration or to the submission of the three deliverables?

The deliverables and demonstration are both required to be completed no later than September 30, 2027.

For configuration B, is an androgynous interface preferred by NASA?

NASA has no preference. An androgynous interface may be advantageous;

however, Offerors should consider the trade-offs and explain its selected approach in its response to NASA.

Are interface definitions and/or envelope data for the Multi-Purpose Habitat available?

No, the interface definitions and/or envelope data for MPH cannot be made available, as it is proprietary; however, the generic interface constraints have been defined in Section 2.3.3.

Will NASA provide the Lunar Utility Vehicle interface definition, carrying capacity, and fine-alignment capability, or should offerors state these as assumptions?

The mobility vehicle (e.g. Lunar Utility Vehicle) to be used in Moon Base Phase 3 is undefined at this time so Offerors should state these as assumptions.

Should offerors assume environmental covers to be single use or re-closable?

Offerors should evaluate these two approaches and provide NASA with a recommendation based upon the design concept.

Does SMS scope include a pressurized vestibule volume, or is the SMS limited to the mating mechanism with the vestibule provided by the mated elements?

The SMS becomes part of the "vestibule volume" once it is pressurized. The proposed SMS designs need to include the structure needed to sustain loads going through the interfaces, the loads imparted due to internal pressurization, and closeout the transgressable volume between the mated elements. Offerors can assume that the mated elements will provide the gas needed to pressurize the volume of the SMS once a mated configuration is established.

GRAC Sections 5.2.2 and 6.1.1 have inversed goal and threshold alignment spheres. Which definition is correct?

They are both correct because Section 5.2.2 defines the delivery precision of the mobility vehicle, whereas Section 6.1.1 defines what the design solution has to do to close the residual gap between the two habitat assets.

Does SMS scope include the utility connections

– power, data, thermal, fluid – or only accommodation for them?

Offerors should include power and data utility connections that are compatible with their mating system concept (reference Sections 2.2.6, 2.2.7, 6.2.2, and 7.2.3).

There may be a desire in the future for fluid umbilical connections.

Should a single SMS design satisfy both the 3-cycle threshold for long-duration and the 60-cycle logistics goal, or are these separate design points?

The offeror should evaluate these two approaches and provide NASA with a recommendation based upon the mating system design.

Should offerors design the structure to a 9.6 psia maximum operating pressure and to 34% oxygen compatibility as the bounding combination?

The structural capabilities of the SMS should consider a maximum operating pressure of 9.6 psia (+ additional FoS). Additionally, we expect considerations to be made for the flammability of materials exposed to an internal environment that may go up to 34% oxygen concentration when at the lower operating pressure of

8.2 psia.

Which passageway dimensions govern the design? GRAC §2.3.3, Figure 2-1 depicts an approximately 1.0 m × 1.5 m passageway within a minimum 1.7 m diameter crew translation corridor, whereas GRAC §7.1.2 specifies a minimum 1.1 m wide × 2.09 m high translation path envelope. Please clarify the required unobstructed passageway dimensions for concept sizing. Is the 1.1 m × 2.09 m envelope required continuously through the SMS, and how should it be reconciled with Figure 2-1?

The 1.7m minimum threshold diameter is only applicable for threshold depths up to 0.15m (notional). The minimum transgressable volume is applicable for any volume outside of these structural thresholds.

Which mobility/SMS capture-envelope combination is the baseline? Based on GRAC §5.2.2 and §6.1.1, the mobility asset’s threshold positioning capability is a 50 cm diameter capture sphere and 7° misalignment, while the SMS threshold capture capability is only a 20 cm diameter sphere and 3° misalignment.

Consequently, the two threshold capabilities do not guarantee successful mating. Should offerors size the baseline SMS to accommodate the mobility asset’s threshold performance, or may they assume the mobility asset achieves its tighter goal performance? Please also clarify whether maximum translational and angular misalignments must be accommodated simultaneously.

Section 5.2.2 is only intended to define the assumed delivery precision of the mobility vehicle. Section 6.1.1 defines what the design solution has to do to close the residual gap between the two habitat assets, whether it is the "nominal" 20cm with 3 deg misalignment or a a worst case of 50 cm and 7 deg misalignment. If the mobility vehicle can only achieve 50 cm and 7 deg misalignment, the overall design solution would need to close the larger residual gap. Offerors should baseline the design solution to accommodate the mobility asset's threshold performance (20 cm and 3 deg), but assess consequences of the worst case delivery precision (50 cm and 7 deg). Yes, the maximum translational and angular misalignments must be accommodated simultaneously.

Please clarify “diameter depth” in GRAC §3.3.1, paragraph 1.

The HDL payload volume is a truncated cylinder, the 6.2m diameter is truncated at a width of 4.85m. See figure below.

Appendix B §2.3.1 states the model contract will be provided in Step 2 RFP. Omnibus §4.1.2.8 requires offerors to describe their data rights approach against the Section 2.7 objectives, and Directed Call 2 white papers are

Yes, a copy of the model contract will be posted to sam.gov before October 16, 2026. FAR 52.227-14 RIGHTS IN DATA-GENERAL (MAY 2014) AS

MODIFIED BY NASA FAR SUPPLEMENT 1852.227-14 (JUN 2026)

(DEVIATION), including ALTERNATE II (DEC 2007), AND ALTERNATE III (DEC 2007) is the governing data rights clause for Appendix B.

due October 16. Will NASA post the Step 2 model contract on SAM.gov before October 16th so that all Step 1 offerors can describe their data rights approach against the actual contract terms?

Omnibus §2.7.1 states the Government will consider less than unlimited rights for co-sponsored development. Will the Appendix B Step 2 model contract incorporate data rights clauses to reflect mixed funding development?

For reference, the publicly posted Appendix A model contract (80GRC026R0008, Attachment C) did not include such clauses.

The model contract currently follows the standard FAR 52.227-14 handling of data rights, and as set forth in Section 2.7.1 of the Omnibus, the Government has unlimited rights in data first produced in the performance of a contract. However, the Omnibus also indicates that, "for co-sponsored research and development activities (i.e., items, components, or processes developed with both the contractor’s funds and the Government’s funds), the Government will consider taking less than unlimited rights (see FAR 27.408). Such lesser rights will include agreed-to Government purposes (including reprocurement rights) but will exclude rights for commercial purposes which will be retained by the contractor."

Consideration for less than unlimited rights for co-sponsored development would be subject to negotiations and approval for the deviation from providing for unlimited rights to the Government.

The FAR clause referenced in Omnibus §3.2.5 lists four additional disclosure purposes for privately developed data: use (except manufacture) by support service contractors, evaluation by nongovernment evaluators, use (except manufacture) by other contractors in the Government's program, and release to foreign governments where U.S. interests require. The publicly posted Appendix A model contract added a fifth purpose, "maintenance, repair, or overhaul, including any right-to-repair activities." For Appendix B, (a) will the Limited Rights Notice be limited to the four purposes in the Omnibus-referenced clause; (b) how will NASA define "the Government's

The model contract, Section C, C-301.5, Right to Repair (JUN 2026) is included in the contract along with the corresponding Data Requirements Document (DRD).

The Use, Maintenance, Repair Data and Instructions (UMRDI) would not be applicable to Directed-Topic Call #2, Surface Mating Systems. This call does not require the delivery of a system, but rather a Surface Mating System concept, culminating in a ground demonstration by the Contractor, along with a concept study, GRAC Feedback, and risk study, as outlined in Section 6.0 of the Call.

The model contract specifies the additional purposes for use of limited rights data, which are set forth in NASA FAR

SUPPLEMENT 1852.227-14 (JUN 2026) (DEVIATION).

NASA will follow the guidance set forth in FAR 27.404-2(c). "Agencies must not, without permission of the contractor, use limited rights data for purposes of manufacture or disclose the data outside the Government except as set forth in the program" for purposes of disclosure to other contractors, given that Appendix B spans multiple Directed-Topic Calls and topic areas;

and (c) will NASA bind recipients to a written non-disclosure obligation and notify the contractor before disclosure?

Notice. Any disclosure by the Government must be subject to prohibition against further use and disclosure by the recipient."

The modified FAR 52.227-14 posted on the NextSTEP website includes paragraph (d)(4), under which the contractor may not assert copyright in, publish, or release outside the Federal Government software first produced under the contract without Contracting Officer authorization, and NASA may direct assignment of the copyright. Omnibus §2.7 states the objective of enabling commercial applications, and Appendix B §3.4.D.6 requires a commercialization path. Will the Step 2 model contract include advance written permission for the contractor to assert copyright in and release first-produced software, subject to the Government's license? If not, how does NASA intend to reconcile this with the required commercialization strategy?

§3.4.D.6 was removed from the Appendix B solicitation in Amendment 1 posted to sam.gov on August 14, 2026. NASA will not include advance written permission for the contractor to assert copyright in and release first-produced software, subject to the Government's license.

Is this call open to offerors that do not hold an Appendix B MATOC, including small businesses proposing as prime or as members of a team?

Yes, NASA is no longer using MATOC for this acquisition.

Does the SMS scope include transfer of electrical power and data across the mated interface, and would a contactless (inductive) power-and-data interface be considered within scope of this call, or as a candidate for a future Open-Topic Call?

Yes, the SMS scope includes transfer of electrical power and data across the mated interface and a contactless (inductive) power-and-data interface is considered within scope of this call.

For TRL assessment, may system-level heritage of the coupling technology in terrestrial applications be cited as evidence toward TRL 6 for the proposed interface?

If "terrestrial applications" means Earth-based applications, it would not qualify for TRL 6 but could be used as justification for TRL 4 or 5, depending on how sensitive the technology is to gravitational effects, vacuum exposure, dynamic loads, and extreme thermal gradients.

Will NASA extend the white paper due date from 10/16/2026 to 10/30/2026?

No, NASA will not be extending the white paper due date. White Papers are to be submitted by 5:00 p.m. CT, October 16, 2026.