CLPS 2.0: the $10B opportunity this September - contract details
I use a lot of screenshots from the contract to make it more readable, but I don't know if I succeeded in that objective. Hold on because this will be a long one. First comes the contract, then the Q&A (mostly). Let's dive into it:
TOC:
- Contract type and $$$ amount
- How to bid on the contract
- Contract services
- Services
- Security Clearance
- CLIN1
- How NASA selects award winners
- Interesting Question & Answers
1. Contract type and $$$ amount
This doesn't differ from CLPS 1.0: it's IndefiniteDelivery/Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ). The Government will issue Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) delivery/task orders (DOs/TOs).
Despite every article reporting $6B for CLPS 2.0, the real amount is $10 billion:
This is for a 10 year time period, from 2026-2036
And it's possible this is extended, summarised - a $5B extension for an extra 5 years:
The FFP contract amount is "to be disclosed" and it's normal that this isn't set yet. It will depend on the task order itself.
2. How to bid on the contract?
To better understand what comes next I put this section here first. Companies can bid through 1 of 3 pathways:
- Pathway 1: you must have operated at least 1 robust (min. 10kg) payload on the moon and can scale to 150kg payloads
- Pathway 2: you must show that they have designed, integrated, and built a lander (including Structural Testing, Thermal Vacuum (TVAC) Testing, Shock Testing, EMI/EMC Testing)
- Pathway 2: you must show that you have met the flight-proven technical baseline, meaning that they have designed, integrated, built, and operated a high-thrust (90 pound-force) spacecraft in space and conducted a mission with a lifetime longer than 24 (continuous) hours
Besides that there will be an on-ramp so that new offerers can compete every year starting from 2027 and an of-ramp for underperformers:
3. Contract services
3.1 Services
CLIN=contract line item number, SoW=Statement of Work
- CLIN 1: The contractor transports NASA payloads to space using its own vehicles and equipment.
- CLIN 2: The contractor delivers lander hardware or equipment directly to NASA.
- CLIN 3: The contractor provides data from research, testing, or other studies as defined in task orders.
Nasa can ask you to show more information about how ready you are for a certain task order (contractor documentation, formal briefings, design reviews, documented processes, facility readiness, quality assurance, etc). Also NASA is still in charge:
These are all defined further in the contract but that would bring us too deep into the details
3.2 Security Clearance
Very interesting that you also need to be able to have a TOP SECRET security clearance for certain task orders. This plays well into the narrative that the USSF wants to be active in the cis-lunar domain:
Under Part 1 The Schedule - 3.0 General Tasks
3.3 CLIN 1
I won't go over CLIN2&3 because it doesn't apply to IM. It's exciting that the payload delivery isn't only for Lunar Surface but also for "other destinations, such as asteroids adn planets". This immediately makes me think of Mars, but as NASA specifies in the Q&A, there will only be task orders for the Lunar Surface in the immediate term.8 But plans can change fast.
And to end CLIN1, the following is close to what was shown on screen during the Moon Base update yesterday (June 30):
4. How NASA selects awards winners
It's section M of the contract and might be too much info if I paste the screenshots here. Basically they check with an initial screening and if you are Unacceptable then you're out. After that they check against the technical criteria, which are defined in the pathway you choose to bid. They rate proposals as either “Acceptable” “Potentially Acceptable”, or “Unacceptable.” The potential ones can deliver more information to get accepted. After that all acceptable ones go to the SSA (Source Selection Authority) who may award one, none, or multiple IDIQ contracts if it is in the Government’s best interest.
Lastly to include it somewher, NASA defined a mission failure:2
5. Interesting Questions & Answers
CLPS providers are still responsible to procure their own launch
Mission failure definition for missions with 1 payload
No restricition on nuclear payloads for any CLIN
Another confirmation that CLPS2.0 starts as for lunar landers only
I have a hard time figuring out which company sent in this question lol
2 questions bundled because I have hit the 20 image limit
With the image limit, the following in table form and I will have to forego my short summary in the description because reddit formatting sucks:
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| 155) Do you recommend a certain pathway for delivering a nuclear payload to the lunar surface | No, NASA does not recommend any specific regulatory pathway. |
| 158) What restrictions, if any, are placed on the lander proposed by an IDIQ on-ramped team for a give task order Are task orders expected to require prior performance of the proposed lander or key subsystems | Future task orders under the CLPS2 master contract may require prior performance of landing systems, depending on the risk tier of the payload(s). |
| 160) From Q&A and Pathway 3 - It looks like companies who have no intension to build Landers will qualify and can get on CLPS 2 whereas new space companies who have made real progress and investments in maturing Lander designs but haven't yet build one do not qualify. Can you clarify | In CLPS2 there is an emphasis on companies with higher maturity levels than were required for CLPS 1.0. |
| 167) Will there be coordination with other NASA programs (i.e. NextSTEP) for which CLIN 3 tasks will be requested at CLPS 2.0 task order level vs. those programs | NASA will coordinate internally as appropriate. |
| 169) how do you anticipate future year on-ramps working will you issue a solicitation, or should companies proactively submit proposals | The onramp clause H6(c) specifies that proposals should only be submitted "when requested". |
| 185) Can you clarify if non-Lander providers can bid as a prime contractor if we meet all other requirements. Does the response to CLPS2 have to include a Lander or just a plan to convert our bus to a lander works | Yes, non-lander offerors can bid as a prime if capable of satisfying the criteria posed in Pathways 1, 2, or 3. Specific vehicle designs and architectures to accomplish future task orders will be evaluated with each task order. |
| 191) Slide 12 Will Task Orders be evaluated against an expected price range. And will that be provided beforehand to on-ramped IDIQ participants, or provided publicly | It is anticipated that future task orders will use price analysis for evaluation. Future task orders under CLPS2 master contract may include a government cost estimate. |
| 195) The solicitation indicates there will be an overlap between CLPS 1.0 and CLPS2.0 ordering periods. - Once CLPS2.0 awards are made and the CLPS2 pool is established, does NASA anticipate that new landing task orders will be placed primarily on CLPS2, or will new landing task orders continue to be issued under CLPS throughout the overlap period? | Once CLPS2 awards are made and the new provider pool is established, NASA expects some overlap with task orders already in progress. New task orders that begin formulation after the CLPS2 pool is established are anticipated to be issued under CLPS2. Existing CLPS task orders will continue through completion, but NASA does not anticipate initiating new task orders under CLPS during the overlap period. |
Although it's nothing game changing, there are interesting tidbits of information here. My main takeaway from the Q&A is from "In CLPS2 there is an emphasis on companies with higher maturity levels than were required for CLPS 1.0.". This means that we won't have a situation like CLPS 1.0 where out of the 13 providers selected we only have 4 actively delivering lunar landers (which is about 30% of selected companies). It wouldn't surprise me if that number is closer to 75% in CLPS 2.0. The second half of 2026 will be interesting.