Looks like source selection document is leaked to an anti-SpaceX reporter in WSJ, I wonder how did that happen.http://online.wsj.com/articles/why-boeing-beat-spacex-in-nasas-space-taxi-contest-1412207046Nothing surprising, seems in terms of HSF NASA is still very much in the old ways, unlike COTS. Very little information on SNC, author is too busy gloating for Boeing.
Quote from: GalacticIntruder on 10/02/2014 03:41 amQuote from: su27k on 10/02/2014 03:06 amLooks like source selection document is leaked to an anti-SpaceX reporter in WSJ, I wonder how did that happen.http://online.wsj.com/articles/why-boeing-beat-spacex-in-nasas-space-taxi-contest-1412207046Nothing surprising, seems in terms of HSF NASA is still very much in the old ways, unlike COTS. Very little information on SNC, author is too busy gloating for Boeing.I basically read it as NASA was too worried about SpaceX's innovation, their secrecy, independence of NASA and not using NASA/space related COTS hardware as the main negative or risks. I don't see NASA opinions a negative on SpaceX. A badge of honor IMO. It is labeled New Space for a reason.It's a good thing that the Administration fought to have at least two CCtCap companies. DC on Stratolaunch (if it goes ahead) may end up being the cheapest because they won't have to deal with NASA oversight.
Quote from: su27k on 10/02/2014 03:06 amLooks like source selection document is leaked to an anti-SpaceX reporter in WSJ, I wonder how did that happen.http://online.wsj.com/articles/why-boeing-beat-spacex-in-nasas-space-taxi-contest-1412207046Nothing surprising, seems in terms of HSF NASA is still very much in the old ways, unlike COTS. Very little information on SNC, author is too busy gloating for Boeing.I basically read it as NASA was too worried about SpaceX's innovation, their secrecy, independence of NASA and not using NASA/space related COTS hardware as the main negative or risks. I don't see NASA opinions a negative on SpaceX. A badge of honor IMO. It is labeled New Space for a reason.
Quote from: su27k on 10/02/2014 03:06 amLooks like source selection document is leaked to an anti-SpaceX reporter in WSJ, I wonder how did that happen.http://online.wsj.com/articles/why-boeing-beat-spacex-in-nasas-space-taxi-contest-1412207046Nothing surprising, seems in terms of HSF NASA is still very much in the old ways, unlike COTS. Very little information on SNC, author is too busy gloating for Boeing.Seems to imply that if snc are successful in their protest, they would replace SpaceX rather than Boeing.
Quote from: sdsds on 09/30/2014 10:25 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 09/30/2014 10:16 pmI believe that the protest by SNC will put a hold on CCtCap payments until the dispute is resolved. Isn't it stronger than that? NASA cannot even enter into the awarded contracts, much less pay for work performed under them, until the dispute is resolved?Yes. Contract award may not be completed while the protest is outstanding. If contracts were awarded, any work incurring USG obligations would be suspended unless there are compelling reasons to do otherwise; none of those would apply in this case. (FYI. GAO must resolve within 100 days, although it typically takes less time. Deadline for this dispute is 5-Jan-2015.
Quote from: yg1968 on 09/30/2014 10:16 pmI believe that the protest by SNC will put a hold on CCtCap payments until the dispute is resolved. Isn't it stronger than that? NASA cannot even enter into the awarded contracts, much less pay for work performed under them, until the dispute is resolved?
I believe that the protest by SNC will put a hold on CCtCap payments until the dispute is resolved.
The article says the document was signed by Gerstenmaier and that it was his decision. A number of the quotes in the article about why Boeing was better than SpaceX are directly attributed to Gerstenmaier. He spent his entire career in a culture that NASA's traditional ways of doing things are the best. It's no surprise that his dings against SpaceX all seem to fall into the category of subjective judgement that the old-school NASA way is better.SpaceX also got penalized for bidding to do more for less money compared with Boeing on CCiCap. Boeing bid to do not very much for a lot of money, so it easily met all its milestones on time. SpaceX bid to do a lot more in the same time for less money and was late. Never mind that for the next round SpaceX has less to do than Boeing because they're farther along.This is also the same NASA human spaceflight organization that's building Orion and SLS. Is it really a surprise they are resistant to change and more comfortable with spending huge amounts of money doing things the way they've always been done?
Quote from: yg1968 on 10/02/2014 03:54 amQuote from: GalacticIntruder on 10/02/2014 03:41 amQuote from: su27k on 10/02/2014 03:06 amLooks like source selection document is leaked to an anti-SpaceX reporter in WSJ, I wonder how did that happen.http://online.wsj.com/articles/why-boeing-beat-spacex-in-nasas-space-taxi-contest-1412207046Nothing surprising, seems in terms of HSF NASA is still very much in the old ways, unlike COTS. Very little information on SNC, author is too busy gloating for Boeing.I basically read it as NASA was too worried about SpaceX's innovation, their secrecy, independence of NASA and not using NASA/space related COTS hardware as the main negative or risks. I don't see NASA opinions a negative on SpaceX. A badge of honor IMO. It is labeled New Space for a reason.It's a good thing that the Administration fought to have at least two CCtCap companies. DC on Stratolaunch (if it goes ahead) may end up being the cheapest because they won't have to deal with NASA oversight.That's only three crew, so doesn't look to meet requirements. Cheers, Martin
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 10/02/2014 05:51 amThe article says the document was signed by Gerstenmaier and that it was his decision. A number of the quotes in the article about why Boeing was better than SpaceX are directly attributed to Gerstenmaier. He spent his entire career in a culture that NASA's traditional ways of doing things are the best. It's no surprise that his dings against SpaceX all seem to fall into the category of subjective judgement that the old-school NASA way is better.SpaceX also got penalized for bidding to do more for less money compared with Boeing on CCiCap. Boeing bid to do not very much for a lot of money, so it easily met all its milestones on time. SpaceX bid to do a lot more in the same time for less money and was late. Never mind that for the next round SpaceX has less to do than Boeing because they're farther along.This is also the same NASA human spaceflight organization that's building Orion and SLS. Is it really a surprise they are resistant to change and more comfortable with spending huge amounts of money doing things the way they've always been done?Your post is no better. You make assumptions about Gerstenmaier that aren't based on fact. He made the CRS choice, the other commercial crew choices, etc.
Of course, past experience with Boeing being "responsive" can't be counted on here, since their past experience of Boeing is on cost-plus contracts.
THAT is the Boeing you're dealing with now, NASA.
Paztor's account is likely onesided, so I will reserve judgment on the selection process until I see the actual selection statement. But what I don't understand is why price was not given more weight in the selection process. The selection criteria were very clear that price was supposed to be the most important factor. Was this followed? I think that is DC's main complaint also. Their proposal was significantly cheaper ($900M) than Boeing's.
{snip}Of course, past experience with Boeing being "responsive" can't be counted on here, since their past experience of Boeing is on cost-plus contracts. This is firm fixed price. If NASA says, "We're not sure we like this cheap thing, do this expensive thing instead." the past answer was, "Sure, it's your dime." now it'll be, "You want to spend Boeing's money?" It's not going to go the same way, and extra fat in the contract isn't going to change that, because with a firm fixed price, every dollar they don't spend is profit for them.{snip}
Quote from: yg1968 on 10/02/2014 01:33 pmPaztor's account is likely onesided, so I will reserve judgment on the selection process until I see the actual selection statement. But what I don't understand is why price was not given more weight in the selection process. The selection criteria were very clear that price was supposed to be the most important factor. Was this followed? I think that is DC's main complaint also. Their proposal was significantly cheaper ($900M) than Boeing's.I don't quite understand the "price is the main factor" thing. It's absurd on the face of it. If NASA has little or no confidence that the offeror can do what he proposes, then price becomes irrelevant. NASA is just not going to select a proposal that they have low confidence in.I suspect what happened here is that NASA simply had less confidence that SNC would be able to meet their milestones. The WSJ article by Andy Pazstor said NASA rated Boeing "very high confidence", and SpaceX "high confidence." He didn't say how SNC ranked, but I doubt they got a "high confidence."
Let's say the price rating was 4 for SpaceX, 3 for SNC, and 2 for Boeing and the price confidence rating was 4 for Boeing, 3 for SpaceX, and 2 for SNC. Usually these two are multiplied together to get the ranking: SpaceX 12, Boeing 8, and SNC 6. So if this was close to the actual numbers used the ranking was the reason why SNC ended up on the bottom. While the price rating is an objective rating the confidence level in the price is an opinion/subjective rating.The source selection review of proposals is supposed to be blind in that the proposers name is replace by a number in all documents being reviewed. This works fine if the reviewers have no past experience with the proposed products. But since the proposed products are well known to the reviewers the source selection confidence rating will be tainted by the opinions on the proposer rather than the proposal in front of them. If this tainting of the confidence rating of both the price and technical can be shown to have occurred by the GAO review then the awardee relative rankings of the proposals could be very different than the NASA one in which one or both (not likely to have both) awards are overturned and an new first and second place is designated resulting in a contract cancelation and a new contract award.
I don't quite understand the "price is the main factor" thing. It's absurd on the face of it. If NASA has little or no confidence that the offeror can do what he proposes, then price becomes irrelevant. NASA is just not going to select a proposal that they have low confidence in.
He didn't say how SNC ranked, but I doubt they got a "high confidence."
Quote from: Nindalf on 10/02/2014 01:49 pmTHAT is the Boeing you're dealing with now, NASA. Again, incorrect. Not the same group at Boeing. CST-100 is mostly legacy Rockwell.
Of course SNC also got rated "high confidence".
I'm not talking about the engineering team, I'm talking about the whole corporate machine. You don't deal with one tentacle in isolation from the beast.