2026 On-Ramp Questions and Answers.pdf

NASA Launch Services II (NLS II) 2026 On-Ramp Solitictation Question and Answers

Questions Reference Answers 1 The posted revision of the NLS-II contract is a more current version than our NLS-II IDIQ. Can we expect to see the draft of a modification to bring our contract up to date prior to the proposal deadline?

Updates to the current NLS II contracts are ongoing.

2 As a current IDIQ Holder on-ramping a new LV, are we required to submit the SF1449 with the proposal?

Yes, the SF 1449 must be submitted per RFP instructions for all offerors. Prior to award, the Government will send existing providers a completed SF30 to sign.

3 Are existing IDIQ Holders/Providers expected to provide responses to Attachment E2, Sections 16.2 through 16.4, and if so, does the request pertain to any LV operated by the provider or only to the new LV proposed for on-ramp?

Please refer to section 10.2.1 Additional Instructions for Existing NLS II Contractors. Existing NLS II Contractors are to only submit the pricing and technical exhibits for new launch vehicles

4 The RFP references "LSP-PLN-324.01 C Expendable Launch Vehicle Certification" in a number of sections. Will the Government confirm the use of the term "Expendable" is a legacy reference and is not an explicit requirement the launch vehicle must be expendable?

Section C, 3.1, Page C-

52, LSP-PLN-324.1

SOW Section 1.2, bullet

Section D, 7.0, Page D1-

The term "Expendable" in the referenced sections is a legacy term and does not reflect a government requirement

5 The RFP's non-standard service list indicates TDRSS-compatible telemetry systems. It is understood TDRSS will be sunset in the future. Please confirm if TDRSS and/or it's successor should be evaluated as a non-standard service .

Section D, Exhibit 3, Page D1-48

This item has been removed from the list.

6 The RFP states "The Offeror shall describe how each proposed common launch vehicle configuration will be certified to category 2 or 3 as defined in NPD 8610.7, ELV Risk Mitigation Policy for NASA- Owned and NASA-Sponsored Payloads." Revision D does not include the term ELV in the policy title.

Please confirm if this is a legacy title that requires update.

Section E, Attachment E2, Section 14.1, Page E2-17

The term "Expendable" in the referenced sections is a legacy term and does not reflect a government requirement

7 The table indicates that the SOW response has a page limit of 250 while Exhibits 1-4, &7 have no page limit; however, the Exhibits are contained within the SOW. Will the Government please confirm which Volumes and Exhibits are included in the 250-page limit.

Section E, Attachment E2, Section 10.3(A), Pages E2-8 - E2-9

Exhibits, though physically located within the SOW, are excluded from the 250 page limit.

8 Exhibit 4 includes a TBP for the NASA Center;

however, it is not clear at the time of submitting this response which NASA Center may be involved with future task orders. Will the Government confirm Exhibit 4 is not required in the submittal for the NLS II on-ramp, it is required only on a task order basis?

Section D, Attachment D1, Exhibit 4

TBP should be TBD, this has been updated. This will be determined on a task-order basis.

9 The Information Technology Security section references NPR 2810.1A, which is obsolete. Please confirm the relevant guidance. If the guidance is NPD 2810.1F, please confirm which of the NIST 800 series are required.

Section D, Attachment D1, Sec. 6.0, Page D1-

NPD 2810.1F is the correct reference. For the NIST 800, please reference SP800-52:

Rev.5 Security & Privacy Controls , SP800- 37: Risk Management Framework (RMF) & SP 800-161: Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management. The RFP has been updated.

10 The Government states in Section 2.1 (B) page C-50 of the solicitation that an AS9100 third party certification from an accredited Registrar is a minimum requirement to On-Ramp to the IDIQ. The United States Space Force IDIQ contract, National Security Space Launch (NSSL), requires a credible path to certification as a minimum requirement to on-ramp to the IDIQ with certification required at the time of Task Order solicitation response due date. It is suggested NLS II require a credible path to AS9100 certification for on-ramp to the program with certification required prior to Task Order bid, which would allow the earliest opportunity to adopt new capabilities to the NLS II IDIQ.

Section 2.1 (B), Page C-

NLS II require AS9100 certification that covers the entire scope of the relevant operations under the contract, not just a subset.

11 "Offeror Due Date/Local Time 5/11/2026 4:00 PM

EST"

Please confirm the time that the proposal is due, and reconcile with the SAM.gov listing, which currently shows 4:30 PM local time.

Section A (1449) Block

The due date on Sam.gov site is correct and Section A has been updated accordingly.

12 Please confirm if NASA wants separate and distinct documents for the following in the Technical Acceptability volume:

1. Unmodified SOW with TBP filled in and bolded

2. Separate document describing line-by-line approach, capabilities, and services descriptions fulfilling listed requirements and tracing to applicable Exhibits and Attachments, as applicable.

As written in the table using "SOW" as a single line-item, as opposed to a direct reference to a "Technical Proposal" and "Attachment D1", it is unclear.

Attachment E2, 10.3 Table E2-A

Correct, the SOW should be filled in with the TBPs, then the exhibits are attached below. Additionally, if you want to reference the exhibit in the TBP, that is ok.

For example, please make sure the TBP is answered but you can also add '(please see Exhibit/Attachment X)'.

13 Will the populated Statement of Work be committed to the contract as-provided?

Attachment E2, 10.3, Table E2-A

Yes

14 If a "Technical Acceptability" narrative is requested in addition to a populated SOW, please specify the page count for each individual document. Does the 250-pg limit apply to each individual document, or is it a combined total page limit?

Attachment E2, 10.3, Table E2-A

The Technical Acceptability narrative and the populated Statement of Work (SOW) together comprise the Offeror’s Volume I submission. The 250‑page limit only applies to the SOW.

15 Please clarify if offerors need to submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan with their on-ramp submittal. It is not listed here in Table E2-A, but it is referenced in Section 13.5.

Attachment E2, 10.3, Table E2-A

Yes, a Small Business Plan is required for new Offerors, existing NLS II Contractors are not required to submit a Small Business Plan, unless those documents need to be updated as a result of the addition of the new common launch vehicle configuration.

(E2 10.2.1) Section E2-A pertains to proposal’s page limitations “Exclude from the page limitation, any required cross-reference list or chart plus the Small Business and Small Disadvantaged Business Subcontracting..”

16 "The Offeror shall provide a list or chart which relates the page and paragraph numbers of the proposal instructions to the proposal's page and paragraph numbers responding to the instructions (excluded from any page count limitation)."

Is this intended to be a standalone document? Please clarify where this chart should be provided.

Attachment E2, 10.3 The required cross‑reference list or chart is excluded from all page‑count limitations and should be submitted as a standalone document. The chart is not required to be placed within a specific volume; it should be submitted as a separate attachment accompanying the proposal package.

17 "The Offeror shall provide a listing of 5 or more previous or existing commercial and governmental launch service contracts, including contract number, contract type, type of vehicle and mission, and total original and present or final contract value. "

If an offeror does not have 5 existing launch service contracts with demonstrated work to discuss, does that mean that the offeror does not have a "record of relevant past performance"? Stated differently, would having less than 5 contracts result in a "Neutral" rating per Section 8 of the Evaluation Criteria?

Attachment E2, 16.1 The requirement to list five or more launch service contracts is intended to provide the Government with sufficient relevant past performance information when available. If an Offeror has fewer than five relevant contracts, the Government will evaluate whatever past performance information is submitted. Having fewer than five contracts does not automatically render a 'Neutral' rating.

18 "Price proposal shall be submitted in Excel 2010 or greater format. "

Please confirm that financial capability statement may be provided in Word or PDF format.

Attachment E2, 10.3 Yes, it can be in Word or PDF format.

19 "Documents should be emailed in MS Word or .PDF format."

Please remove this text to avoid any confusion in the submittal process, as proposals are to be uploaded to Box.

Attachment E2, 10.3 It has been removed. However, please email the CO to verify that you have submitted the documents and we have received.

20 "The Offeror shall provide at least one copy of Volume 4, Model Contract text in MS Word."

Could NASA please provide a copy of the Solicitation in MS Word format to prevent any formatting wonkiness when offerors convert source files to Word to meet this requirement? Alternatively, please remove this requirement.

Attachment E2, 10.3 The requirement for Volume 4, Model Contract to be in MS Word remains. The MS Word Solicitation has been added to SAM.gov.

21 "All pages must be numbered."

Should offerors follow NASA's numbering for their submitted Attachments and Exhibits (i.e., using D1- X, D2-X, etc.)?

Attachment E2, 10.3 Yes.

22 "A reference column has been inserted on the attached sample formats for Offerors to identify the submitted information."

Please confirm that supporting information for price reasonableness is limited to the reference column in the attached sample format pricing forms, and no additional pricing narrative is required.

Attachment E2, 12.2.2 Supporting price reasonableness information is not limited to reference column within sample format pricing form, Offerors are encouraged to provide all necessary documentation to substantiate reasonableness of proposed prices. REF.

column could reference Offeror’s Proposal page and section with price reasonableness narrative.

23 "The Offerors shall include all Section D exhibits, and attachments, listed in Table E2-A for Volume 1 and place in Volume 1."

Please confirm that Attachments D and Exhibits only need to be provided once in Volume 1, and not replicated in Volume 4 for the Model Contract, per the instructions in section 13.6.

Attachment E2, 13.6 Page E2-9 Updated. For the Volume 1-3, it can be submitted in PDFs (or Excel for Price), but the Volume 4 does need to be submitted in its entirety as a word document for our contract file. This model contract will become the official contract document.

24 "The Offeror shall describe how they will coordinate and assist NASA Public Affairs Office with press releases, launch commentary, news conferences, and press kit documentation development. The Offeror shall identify and describe all services included in the proposed standard launch service(s) necessary to meet the requirements of this SOW. Describe any limitations associated with these services. This information shall be provided in Exhibit 2, Standard Services."

This paragraph as written could be misinterpreted as limitations only for the PA scope. Does NASA desire limitations for all services, or would this be viewed as noncompliance?

Attachment E2, 15.2 The statements " Describe any limitations associated with these services. This information shall be provided in Exhibit 2, Standard Services" is not limited to NASA Public Affairs support but rather to the entire SOW. Any limitations may result in noncompliance.

25 "The Offeror shall identify any new, existing, or commercial products proposed to satisfy the description/data requirements of each CDRL. The Offeror shall describe, in detail, the information/data contained in these documents and shall state how this information will satisfy the description/data requirements of each CDRL."

Does NASA intend for this narrative to go in Attachment D2 directly, or is this narrative meant to go in the Technical Acceptability volume? If these capabilities and products are described elsewhere in the proposal already, is it acceptable to cross reference that sections per 10.3 (D) of the Instructions to Offerors?

Attachment E2, 15.13 Cross reference is acceptable

26 "The following evaluation factors and significant sub factors establish the requirements of acceptability and shall be used to evaluate proposals for new providers:

(2) Technical Acceptability

(i) Technical Approach

(ii) Management Approach Please clarify what portions of the Technical Acceptability volume fall into Technical Approach vs Management Approach. The Instructions to Offerors, Attachment E2, does not separate the Technical Acceptability volume into subfactors.

Attachment E3, 2 Although Attachment E2 does not divide the Technical Acceptability volume into subfactors, the Government evaluates the content under the two subfactors identified in Section M: Technical Approach and Management Approach. Technical Approach includes the Offeror’s technical methods, launch vehicle capabilities, mission flow, compliance with SOW requirements, and technical risks.

Management Approach includes program management, organizational structure, management processes, and the Offeror’s ability to perform and manage risks.

Offerors may structure their Volume I as they choose, but the content will be evaluated in accordance with these subfactors.

27 Does NASA prefer that offerors refer to themselves as 'the Contractor' or Contractor's name?

Exhibits Company's Name

28 Does NASA prefer that Exhibit 2 and 3, standard and nonstandard services be written in the form of shall statements and technical specifications, and reserve qualitative descriptions for Technical Acceptability and Attachments?

Exhibit 2 / 3 Any qualitative descriptions should be in Exhibits 2 and 3.

29 Acknowledging the nonstandard services listed in Exhibit 3 are undeveloped at the time of proposal submittal, but planned to be development in the future, is it acceptable for Offeror to represent that it does not offer such nonstandard services at this time?

Can NASA confirm that this does not represent a failure to respond pursuant to E3-2 Section 3.5?

Exhibit 3 Exhibit 3 identifies Non‑Standard Services that may be required on future task orders.

NASA recognizes that some of these services may be undeveloped or not currently offered by an Offeror at the time of proposal submission. It is acceptable for an Offeror to state in Exhibit 3 that it does not presently offer specific Non‑Standard Services. Doing so will not be treated as a failure to respond under Section E3‑2, paragraph 3.5.

30 The SF1449 references FAR sections attached as addenda, however they are not attached to the solicitation. Could NASA please provide these attachments?

SF 1449Block 27 The solicitation refects the Revolutioary FAR Overhaul required provisions and clauses. The SF 1449 has not been revised to reflect these changes.

31 (J) Availability of a Test Payload Adapter (TPA), with appropriate mechanical interfaces and payload separation system, to support payload integration and testing at NASA/NASA Customer (NNC) facilities or such other locations as defined by the ICD.

Please clarify the following:

1. In the event the payload does not require an adapter (the payload uses a separation system that interfaces directly to the launch vehicle interface), what Test Article would need to be provided?

Attachment D1:

Statement of Work, 2.1 (J)

Provide the Payload Adapter interface (if required) and separation system. The launch vehicle interface is not required.

32 Could NASA provide a copy of LSP-PD-120.05? It is not readily available on the NASA website.

Attachment D1:

Statement of Work, 1.3

Yes, it will be in this amendment.

33 Are we allowed to launch from international locations in support of NLS II missions? If so, should we propose performance for those launch site locations in Attachment D1?

Launch from international locations is not expressly prohibited. Launch performance should be described for all proposed launch locations if known.

34 If we do not currently launch from CCSFS, is it still a requirement to be able to deliver 250 kg to 200 km x

28.5 deg? Or is it sufficient to provide flight performance estimates showing either of the following:

It is sufficient to describe proposed performance from proposed launch sites

35 Can you provide some examples of the type of “new” launch services that you would consider appropriate under the On-Ramp and Technology Insertion clause, Section C, Clause 2.0?

NASA is evaluating the proposed launch services not currently on the NLS contract and will continue to allow for opportunities to continue to add launch services.

36 Can you provide some examples/definitions of what constitutes a new launch vehicle configuration? e.g.

reusability? Higher thrust?

Under NLSII, NASA has the right to evaluate changes to the on-ramped launch vehicle and determine whether those changes constitute a new common launch vehicle consideration

37 Do we bid Cat II and/or Cat III mission assurance scope as part of the standard launch services or the non-standard services?

An Offeror's described and priced standard launch service should include all scope required to execute a launch service or fully implement a non-standard launch service. Mission assurance is not a separate item to be priced.

38 How are expenses associated with certification handled under NLS II? Is there a separate Task Order to support onboarding or should we just plan to amortize these costs in our NTE and mission TO bids?

Certification activities are not a separately charged item.

Sheet1