Inactive

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)/Johnson Space Center (JSC) is hereby soliciting information from potential sources for Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) 2.0 solicitatio... The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)/Johnson Space Center (JSC) is hereby soliciting information from potential sources for Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) 2.0 solicitation. JSC is issuing this Sources Sought Synopsis (SSS)/Request for Information (RFI) as a means of conducting market research to identify parties having an interest in, and the resources to, support this requirement. This acquisition will be a follow-on procurement to the current NASA CLPS contracts which limited the competition to domestic sources that provide domestically manufactured space vehicles including landers/transporters. The result of this market research will contribute to determining the type and method of procurement. The applicable North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code assigned to this procurement is 481212 Nonscheduled Chartered Freight Air Transportation with a size standard of 1,500 employees. NASA/JSC is seeking capability statements from all interested parties, including all socioeconomic categories of Small Businesses and Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU)/Minority Institutions (MI) for the purposes of determining the appropriate level of competition and/or small business subcontracting goals for CLPS 2.0. The Government reserves the right to consider a Small, 8(a), Women-owned (WOSB), Service-Disabled Veteran (SD-VOSB), Economically Disadvantaged Women-owned Small Business (EDWOSB) or HUBZone business set-aside based on responses received. CLPS 2.0 Description: The primary objective of this contract is to provide all activities necessary to safely integrate, accommodate, transport, and operate NASA Sponsored Payloads using contractor-provided assets, including launch vehicles, lunar lander spacecraft, lunar surface systems, Earth re-entry vehicles and associated resources. Capability Statement: Interested firms having the required capabilities necessary to provide the end-to-end services as described above, should indicate their abilities to perform all aspects of the effort, and include the following information: 1. Technical - Describe your company's overall skills, experience, and capabilities to perform the work of the anticipated CLPS 2.0 procurement. If subcontracting or if a joint venture is anticipated, organizations should address the anticipated administrative and management structure of such arrangements (if this information is known at this time). Also address what elements of work would be performed by the prime or joint venture partners and which elements would be performed by subcontractors. 2. General a. What barriers or obstacles do you foresee to potentially bidding on this contract? Can you identify any Government acquisition approaches that would increase the competitiveness of this procurement? b. What innovations might you propose in the performance of this contract or contract structure? c. Provide feedback and rationale on any other topics, factors, and/or items of interest you would like to address regarding this potential procurement. 3. Company-Specific Information - Responses must include the following: a. Name and address of the firm’s Point of Contact information (include DUNS number, address, phone, and email) b. Size of business i. Average annual revenue for past three years ii. Number of employees iii. Whether the firm is Large, SB, Small Disadvantaged Business (SBD), HUBZone, WOSB, Veteran Owned Small Business (VOSB), SDVOSB, and/or HBCU/MI c. Number of years in business CLPS Specific Questions: These CLPS Specific Questions are organized into three sections, each tailored to a specific group of participants. We encourage all participants to respond to the sections that are most relevant to their expertise. 1. Current and Prospective CLPS Vendors This group includes companies that design, build, and operate the lunar landers. Their responses are the most critical for understanding the technical and operational feasibility of CLPS 2.0. A. NASA Insight Models i. Describe your ideal model for collaboration with NASA throughout the mission lifecycle, from award to post-mission data review. What types of collaborative activities, interactions, or technical assistance are most beneficial to ensure task order success? Where could NASA’s involvement be streamlined or adjusted to maximize mission success? ii. What level of NASA insight and oversight would your company recommend for missions where NASA has a lower risk tolerance due to high-value payloads? Please provide an example of a flexible insight model that balances mission success with CLPS cost-efficiency. B. Expanded Capabilities i. What progress has your company made in developing the capability and commercial processes for accommodating and launching radioactive sources, such as Radioisotope Heater Units or Radioisotope Power Systems, on your missions? Please describe your readiness, any specific challenges encountered, and proposed solutions for their safe integration and transport. Please discuss if the radioisotope systems you are considering would enable extended operations within a Permanently Shadowed Region (PSR). ii. What are the key technical and financial challenges associated with offering a sample return capability on a future CLPS mission? What size lander and ascent stage would be needed for 2 kg return mass and how could NASA best collaborate on this type of mission? C. Lander Providers & Market Development i. As a lander provider, what is your assessment of the viability of the commercial lunar payload market? What should NASA’s role be in the commercial lunar delivery market and how can NASA contribute to stimulating the lunar economy? ii. If NASA were to make ‘block buys’ of multiple missions in a single task order, what would be the major benefits and challenges of that approach? Please discuss if all payload requirements for each mission should be set at award or if NASA might obtain pre-negotiated prices for future un-specified payloads at award. D. Payload Accommodation & Interface Requirements i. From a lander developer perspective, what specific areas of payload interfaces offer the most significant potential for efficiency and cost gains through standardization (e.g., mechanical, electrical, data, thermal, or operational aspects)? Please identify these areas and suggest concrete types of standardization for CLPS 2.0. E. Artemis Logistics and Support i. What specific technical, operational, and financial challenges do CLPS vendors face when supporting future Artemis human missions that require more capability, higher reliability, and higher safety standards? How can NASA ensure high reliability for Artemis support missions while working under a commercial model like CLPS? ii. For larger (>2 mt payload) landers, please recommend ways in which landers could enable offloading of payloads, such as, lowering to the surface to be available for other mobility services to move? What would be the impacts to lander performance or other capabilities to make offloading available? How could a lander best interface with external systems for offloading if required? F. Additional Comments i. Provide any other information that you feel could help NASA shape the future of the CLPS initiative. 2. Payload Providers This group includes commercial customers, scientific and technology teams from NASA centers, and NASA-funded PIs from universities. Their feedback is essential for understanding the needs and challenges of all users of lunar services. A. Payload Characteristics & Needs i. As a payload provider, what is your assessment of the commercial lunar payload market? What are the biggest technical and financial challenges commercial payload providers face in getting to the Moon, and how can NASA best enable these deliveries on CLPS 2.0? ii. If you are planning to fly payloads on a future CLPS mission, what are the anticipated scope and objectives of your expected payload manifest and are they NASA related or commercial focused? What are the basic characteristics of your payload manifest (mass, volume, power, data volume/rates, operational duration, period of performance, landing site, stand-alone, lander-dependent, etc.)? • Which capabilities, accommodations, and interfaces are commonly requested? • Which future capabilities are highly sought after (e.g., high-power, long-duration ops, advanced thermal control, mobility deployment, night survivability, etc.) but are currently limited or unavailable? • Does your payload require co-manifesting space on the CLPS mission’s launch vehicle? If so, how can NASA best sustain this option? B. Payload Accommodation & Interface Requirements i. How should CLPS 2.0 balance the benefits of standardized interfaces with the flexibility required for diverse payload objectives? Please identify the specific areas (e.g., mechanical, electrical, data, thermal, operational) where and how standardization could most significantly constrain unique payload objectives. Conversely, for which areas do you recommend concrete types of standardization to improve efficiency, reduce cost, or increase reliability? C. Additional Comments i. Provide any other information that you feel could help NASA shape the future of the CLPS initiative. 3. Lunar Surface Mobility and Specialized Subsystem Providers This group includes companies that specialize in providing specific services or components, such as rovers, robotic arms, power systems, or other mission-enabling technologies. Their expertise is vital for expanding CLPS capabilities beyond simple payload delivery. A. Surface Mobility as a Market i. How can industry provide lunar mobility services capable of transporting payload(s) from a CLPS lander? Should industry provide this as mobility-as-a- service (e.g., fixed-price per distance/mass) or is another model recommended? Should mobility assets be procured separate from the integrated lander missions and if so, why? B. Specialized Subsystems and Supply Chain i. What ways, if any, would it be beneficial to have NASA engage with providers of mission-enabling subsystems (e.g., robotic arms, rovers, hoppers, etc.) to ensure a robust supply chain for future CLPS missions? C. Additional Comments i. Provide any other information that you feel could help NASA shape the future of the CLPS initiative. Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI): NASA/JSC is requesting information from industry regarding potential organizational conflicts of interest (OCI) arising from the CLPS 2.0. The nature of the work anticipated under the CLPS 2.0 may create the potential for OCI(s) as currently described in FAR Subpart 9.5. Each interested party should review FAR Subpart 9.5 in light of NASA’s anticipation of OCI issues and consider carefully the extent to which an OCI may arise before making the decision to compete for the CLPS 2.0. You are requested to provide electronic responses via e-mail to the Contracting Officer listed at the end of this synopsis. Your response is requested by 5:00pm CST on February 5, 2026. Interested parties are requested to address the following questions: 1. What type(s) of OCI issues would your company or potential team identify, if any, should you choose to propose on the CLPS 2.0 contract? 2. What strategies would you anticipate proposing to mitigate the OCI issues that you identified (if any)? Please provide strategy details, previous examples/experience with other contracts with NASA or other agencies, etc. 3. Are there any other types of potential OCI issues with the proposed CLPS 2.0 contract that were not identified in this RFI (assuming any were identified)? 4. Does your company foresee any OCI issues associated with the CLPS 2.0 that would cause you to decide not to propose on the potential CLPS 2.0 RFP? NASA will review any responses received regarding potential OCI and each offeror’s proposed OCI mitigation strategy. NASA will respond to each company who submits a mitigation strategy. NASA’s response is not intended to serve as a confirmation that, in fact, all potential OCI have been identified, an OCI will ultimately exist, or that an interested party is capable of successfully eliminating or mitigating an identified OCI. NASA’s response is also not intended to encourage or discourage any interested party from responding to an RFP issued for CLPS 2.0 in the future. Furthermore, NASA’s response in no way alters or interprets FAR 9.5 as it applies to a final statement of work or a final proposal submission, should an interest party elect to submit a proposal to an RFP for CLPS 2.0. Subsequent to the initial OCI submission and NASA’s response, NASA will not consider further information as it relates to this RFI. Submission Instructions: Interested firms having the required capabilities necessary to perform the end-to-end CLPS 2.0 objectives described herein should submit a capability statement indicating the ability to perform all aspects of the effort and answering the specific CLPS questions. Any other interested firms should submit answers to the CLPS specific questions only. Interested firms are not required to provide answers to any or all of the CLPS specific questions. The capability statement and answers to the CLPS specific questions can be no more than 20 pages, using no less than 12-point Times New Roman font. The OCI information should be submitted as an additional document. There is no page limitation to the OCI information submittal. Interested firms who consider themselves qualified are invited to submit a response to this Sources Sought Notice/RFI by 5:00pm CST on February 5, 2026. All responses under this Sources Sought Notice/RFI must be emailed to jsc-clps2@mail.nasa.gov. Please reference 80JSC026CLPS2 and your Company Name in any response. This synopsis is for information and planning purposes only and is not to be construed as a commitment by the Government nor will the Government pay for information solicited. Respondents will not be notified of the results of the evaluation. NASA intends to publicize a listing of respondents in order to facilitate teaming arrangements. Should your firm desire not to be included in this listing, clearly indicate this desire in your response. NASA will not affirmatively release any information received in response to this RFI to the public but may use information received in developing the best approach for a contract strategy, and therefore such information may be recognizable to the interested party who submitted it. Any information submitted in response to this RFI that is marked as “Confidential Commercial or Financial Information” will be considered as voluntarily submitted in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act. NASA Clause 1852.215-84, Ombudsman, is applicable. The JSC Center Ombudsman for this acquisition can be found at https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/procurement/regs/Procurement-Ombuds-Comp- Advocate-Listing.pdf All questions should be directed to the point of contact identified below. In accordance with FAR 15.201(e), responses to this notice are not offers and cannot be accepted by NASA to form a binding contract. NASA is under no obligation to issue a solicitation or to award any contract on the basis of this SSS/RFI. NASA will not pay for any information solicited under this SSS/RFI. No solicitation exists; therefore, do not request a copy of a solicitation. If a solicitation is released it will be synopsized on SAM.gov. It is the interested party’s responsibility to monitor this website for the release of any subsequent solicitation or synopsis.