Author Topic: Commercial Crew Cost Analyses & Discussion  (Read 54253 times)

Offline mkent

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 118
  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Liked: 113
  • Likes Given: 1
Commercial Crew Cost Analyses & Discussion
« on: 09/20/2014 02:57 am »
There has been much discussion about the cost of NASA’s commercial crew program: the disparity between the Boeing and SpaceX awards, how it compares to Soyuz seats, etc.  If I may be so bold, for my first post I’d like to start a new thread for cost analyses of this important program.

To start, why is there such a large disparity between the Boeing and SpaceX CCtCap awards?

It was announced on Tuesday that Boeing received a CCtCap award of $4.2 billion and SpaceX received an award of $2.6 billion, a difference of $1.6 billion.  Each award included finishing the development of their respective vehicles, up to $150 million in special studies, an unmanned test flight, a manned test flight, and 2-6 operational flights.  The advertised award amounts were contract maximums and assumed all of the special studies and operational flights would be awarded.

The key to understand the dollar disparity is noting two things: 1) The Boeing CST-100 will launch on an Atlas V while the SpaceX Dragon will launch on a Falcon 9, and 2) SpaceX began Dragon development under the COTS program while Boeing did not.

Boeing has always been launch-vehicle agnostic for its CST-100 vehicle.  Company executives have stated this several times.  They would be happy to fly on the Atlas V, the Delta IV, or the Falcon 9.  They even mentioned flying on the proposed Liberty launch vehicle should it ever become available.

According to a post-award article in the Wall Street Journal, however, NASA wanted two different (American) launch vehicles for the contract.  With Dragon going up on the Falcon 9, CST-100 would have to go up on the Atlas V.

The list price of a Falcon 9 is $61.2 million.  According to ULA Vice President George Sowers, the cost of an Atlas V 401 is $164 million.  The CST-100, however, requires an Atlas V 422.  That configuration has an extra RL-10 upper-stage engine and two solid rocket boosters that the 401 doesn’t have.  With RL-10s said to cost between $10-20 million each, an Atlas V 422 would cost $174-$184 million plus the cost of the two solids.  It is probably conservative to say that the Atlas V 422 costs $125 million more than the Falcon 9.

Eight flights (two test plus six operational) at an extra $125 million each yield an extra $1.0 billion, over half the disparity.  That brings the capsule and development-cost disparity from $1.6 billion down to $600 million.

In addition, SpaceX received nearly $400 million in COTS funding from NASA to develop its cargo Dragon vehicle.  It is essentially an unmanned prototype of its crew Dragon, though some systems differ.  Boeing did not receive a COTS award.  The work SpaceX did under COTS will have to be done by Boeing under CCtCap.

Thus the true disparity between the two contractors is about $200 million – a difference, but not a large one.

Note also that SpaceX received a $1.6 billion CRS contract from NASA as well.  While most of that is going to build and launch the Falcons and Dragons required under that contract, a portion of that was likely used to build up the Dragon assembly line.  Boeing will be performing that work under the CCtCap contract.  However it is impossible for anyone outside of SpaceX to know how much that was, so for this analysis it is ignored.

Any comments?

I hope I have added something valuable to the discussion.

Offline mkent

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 118
  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Liked: 113
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Commercial Crew Cost Analyses & Discussion
« Reply #1 on: 09/20/2014 03:10 am »
About the cost of CCtCap compared to Soyuz seats...

Each company's CCtCap award is the development cost + $150 million special studies cost + 8 x flight cost.  With two variables for each contractor, we as of yet have no way of determining the true per-seat operational cost of the Dragon or CST-100.

Elon Musk has stated the crew Dragon operational cost will be $140 million / flight, but that was before CCtCap and based on four crew flights per year.  Considering the SpaceX CCtCap award was for significantly more than what Mr. Musk has said development of crew Dragon would be, it is likely NASA's requirements for CCtCap have invalidated the $140 million figure.

While we don't know the operational cost of either vehicle, we do know the overall value of the CCtCap contract -- $6.8 billion.

NASA's latest Soyuz contract with Russia cost $458 million for six seats, or $76.3 million per.  The $6.8 billion CCtCap contract could therefore pay for 89 seats on the Soyuz, assuming the price didn't go up in the meantime.

In addition to the four test flights, the CCtCap contract contains 12 operational flights during which 48 astronauts will travel to the station.

However, that assumes only four seats per flight.  The Dragon and the CST-100 can each carry seven.  NASA prefers to forgo the three extra seats per flight and fill the slots with cargo instead.  Flying seven seats per flight would provide 84 astronauts a trip to the station.  So for 89 Soyuz seats' worth of costs, NASA can fly 84 seats worth of crew and cargo to the station on the CCtCap contract.

Since NASA considers the cargo more valuable than the extra astronauts, one could argue that the value to NASA is more than 84 seats' worth, but I think it's close enough to the Soyuz to call it a wash.



Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11934
Re: Commercial Crew Cost Analyses & Discussion
« Reply #2 on: 09/20/2014 03:38 am »
Welcome to NSF, and bold move making your first post as a new topic!

There has been much discussion about the cost of NASA’s commercial crew program: the disparity between the Boeing and SpaceX awards, how it compares to Soyuz seats, etc.  If I may be so bold, for my first post I’d like to start a new thread for cost analyses of this important program.

To start, why is there such a large disparity between the Boeing and SpaceX CCtCap awards?

We need more information, and part of that should come with the Selection Statement that NASA will release at some point.

Quote
The key to understand the dollar disparity is noting two things: 1) The Boeing CST-100 will launch on an Atlas V while the SpaceX Dragon will launch on a Falcon 9, and 2) SpaceX began Dragon development under the COTS program while Boeing did not.

Yes, so likely the two major drivers are:

A.  Cost of the Falcon 9 v1.1 versus the Atlas V 402
B.  Cost of developing the Dragon V2 versus the CST-100

Quote
Boeing has always been launch-vehicle agnostic for its CST-100 vehicle.  Company executives have stated this several times.  They would be happy to fly on the Atlas V, the Delta IV, or the Falcon 9.  They even mentioned flying on the proposed Liberty launch vehicle should it ever become available.

While true, they have only been planning to fly on the Atlas V at this point.

Quote
According to a post-award article in the Wall Street Journal, however, NASA wanted two different (American) launch vehicles for the contract.  With Dragon going up on the Falcon 9, CST-100 would have to go up on the Atlas V.

Andy Pasztor is far from being a good source of unbiased information, so it's best to disregard what he said and wait for the NASA Selection Statement to understand what the determining factors were.

Quote
Eight flights (two test plus six operational) at an extra $125 million each yield an extra $1.0 billion, over half the disparity.  That brings the capsule and development-cost disparity from $1.6 billion down to $600 million.

The total number of flights is 6, performed by some combination of Boeing and SpaceX.  If both are certified then they are guaranteed at least 2ea of the flights, with 2ea flights left to be assigned.

Quote
Boeing did not receive a COTS award.  The work SpaceX did under COTS will have to be done by Boeing under CCtCap.

True, but Boeing has received more Commercial Crew funding overall than SpaceX.

Quote
I hope I have added something valuable to the discussion.

Good questions, and some good assumptions.  We need more information though, and the Selection Statement will help with that I think.

And again, Welcome to NSF!
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline MP99

Re: Commercial Crew Cost Analyses & Discussion
« Reply #3 on: 09/20/2014 07:46 am »
From http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34785.0

Quote
1.  If you take the complete contract value of all of ULA's backlog missions and the total block buy inclusive of the capability contracts (which many on this forum like to call a subsidy---incorrectly) and divide by the total number of missions you get an average mission price of $225M.  This includes all missions, DOD, NASA commercial, Atlas V 401 thru Delta IV heavy.

2.  Within the current block buy, the total price of an Atlas V 401 (comparable to a Falcon 9 1.1) is $164M.  This number is arrived at by taking the incremental price as spelled out in the contract and adding an allocation of the capability cost.  The allocation was on a simple per mission basis.

3.  The incremental price of an Atlas V 401 is less than $100M.  This is the cost to the USG to increase the block buy from 26 missions to 27.  We are not giving the specific number at this time.

(My bold.)

ISTM that test flights and a 2017 first flight will fall within the timeframe of the ULA block buy (assuming they aren't late).

IIUC, the difference between those $100m and $164m figures is that they are covered by the capability contracts.

A commercial entity buying a flight would have to reimburse a proportion of the capability contract (CC) amount. Thus the $164m figure would apply.

If NASA was buying the flight, I believe they would pay the $100m amount, as the USG has already paid for the CC. (Can someone confirm this, please?)

My guess is that Boeing, as a commercial organisation providing a commercial service, will pay the $164m figure (as the analysis above assumes).

BUT NOTE THAT THIS INCLUDES A CC REPAYMENT TO THE USG. This should be more than $64m per flight, by breaking down Dr Sowers' figures. [**]

Over eight flights, ISTM that the Boeing bid includes ballpark of $500m in repayments, which I understand go straight into the DoD budget.

While the $164m figure is a true reflection of the cost of the launch, the USG has already budgeted the CC element. Congress could increase NASA's budget by $64m per Boeing crew flight AT ABSOLUTELY NO NET INCREASE TO THE TOP LINE BUDGET. It will be repaid straight back.

[**] the amount of a CC repayment should actually decrease slightly for each additional launch purchased ($62m, $60m), since it's a reciprocal function, mathematically. 1/27th, 1/28th, 1/29th, etc.

Also, of course, this analysis (and the OP) assumes block-buy prices continue throughout the period of the eight flights. If the CC continues and the total number of ULA flights goes down post-2017, the size of any repayments might even go up.

###################

Alternative view:- Since NASA is ultimately paying the bill, they only have to pay the "less than $100M" figure, and the analysis in the OP is wrong.

###################

I think we need Jim to settle this one.

Would the cost of the Atlas V flights in Boeing's bid include a repayment towards the Capability Contract?

Cheers, Martin

Edit: oh, and welcome to the forum! Good first post.

Edit 2: tl;dr version: the $164m in the OP analysis includes the capability contract (CC) that the USG is *already paying*. One way or another it should not be counted twice, though the full $164m might have to come out of NASA's budget (which would be to the benefit of the DoD).
« Last Edit: 09/20/2014 08:02 am by MP99 »

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Re: Commercial Crew Cost Analyses & Discussion
« Reply #4 on: 09/20/2014 08:15 am »
The was never going to be a down select without the being Boeing included no matter the cost unless they pulled out on their own....
« Last Edit: 09/20/2014 08:17 am by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline HIP2BSQRE

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 668
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: Commercial Crew Cost Analyses & Discussion
« Reply #5 on: 09/20/2014 08:36 am »
There has been much discussion about the cost of NASA’s commercial crew program: the disparity between the Boeing and SpaceX awards, how it compares to Soyuz seats, etc.  If I may be so bold, for my first post I’d like to start a new thread for cost analyses of this important program.

To start, why is there such a large disparity between the Boeing and SpaceX CCtCap awards?

It was announced on Tuesday that Boeing received a CCtCap award of $4.2 billion and SpaceX received an award of $2.6 billion, a difference of $1.6 billion.  Each award included finishing the development of their respective vehicles, up to $150 million in special studies, an unmanned test flight, a manned test flight, and 2-6 operational flights.  The advertised award amounts were contract maximums and assumed all of the special studies and operational flights would be awarded.

The key to understand the dollar disparity is noting two things: 1) The Boeing CST-100 will launch on an Atlas V while the SpaceX Dragon will launch on a Falcon 9, and 2) SpaceX began Dragon development under the COTS program while Boeing did not.

Boeing has always been launch-vehicle agnostic for its CST-100 vehicle.  Company executives have stated this several times.  They would be happy to fly on the Atlas V, the Delta IV, or the Falcon 9.  They even mentioned flying on the proposed Liberty launch vehicle should it ever become available.

According to a post-award article in the Wall Street Journal, however, NASA wanted two different (American) launch vehicles for the contract.  With Dragon going up on the Falcon 9, CST-100 would have to go up on the Atlas V.

The list price of a Falcon 9 is $61.2 million.  According to ULA Vice President George Sowers, the cost of an Atlas V 401 is $164 million.  The CST-100, however, requires an Atlas V 422.  That configuration has an extra RL-10 upper-stage engine and two solid rocket boosters that the 401 doesn’t have.  With RL-10s said to cost between $10-20 million each, an Atlas V 422 would cost $174-$184 million plus the cost of the two solids.  It is probably conservative to say that the Atlas V 422 costs $125 million more than the Falcon 9.

Eight flights (two test plus six operational) at an extra $125 million each yield an extra $1.0 billion, over half the disparity.  That brings the capsule and development-cost disparity from $1.6 billion down to $600 million.

In addition, SpaceX received nearly $400 million in COTS funding from NASA to develop its cargo Dragon vehicle.  It is essentially an unmanned prototype of its crew Dragon, though some systems differ.  Boeing did not receive a COTS award.  The work SpaceX did under COTS will have to be done by Boeing under CCtCap.

Thus the true disparity between the two contractors is about $200 million – a difference, but not a large one.

Note also that SpaceX received a $1.6 billion CRS contract from NASA as well.  While most of that is going to build and launch the Falcons and Dragons required under that contract, a portion of that was likely used to build up the Dragon assembly line.  Boeing will be performing that work under the CCtCap contract.  However it is impossible for anyone outside of SpaceX to know how much that was, so for this analysis it is ignored.

Any comments?

I hope I have added something valuable to the discussion.


Another way to think of it:

NASA wants:

2 Testing flights per company = 4 total flights

12 max Total flights/ (6 per company)

4 min total flights/ (2 per company)

Min. number of total flights: 8 flights

Max. total flights: 2+2+6+6 =16 flights

Total contact award: $6.8 billion dollars

That is for an average of 425 millions/flight!

SpaceX got  $2.6 billion for up to 8 flights.  (2 test and 6 for real flights) = $325 million/ flight average

Total number of people =25 people= approx. $110 m/person


Boeing got  up $4.2 billion for up to 8 flights (2 tests and 6 for real flights) =$525 million/flight average
Boeing number of people= 25 people = approx. $168 million/person.






« Last Edit: 09/20/2014 05:00 pm by HIP2BSQRE »

Offline cartman

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 534
  • Greece
  • Liked: 524
  • Likes Given: 10431
Re: Commercial Crew Cost Analyses & Discussion
« Reply #6 on: 09/20/2014 09:33 am »

The total number of flights is 6, performed by some combination of Boeing and SpaceX.  If both are certified then they are guaranteed at least 2ea of the flights, with 2ea flights left to be assigned.

They have budgeted 6 flights per company, this was changed in April.

Offline cartman

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 534
  • Greece
  • Liked: 524
  • Likes Given: 10431
Re: Commercial Crew Cost Analyses & Discussion
« Reply #7 on: 09/20/2014 10:17 am »
Lets make some back-of-the-envelope calculations:
SpaceX got $1.6B for 12 CRS flights, or $135M/flight. We have also seen a $20M/seat for 7 seats or $140M/flight quote from Elon Musk during the Dragon V2 unveil. So for 8 flights (2 testing and 6 operational), SpaceX should be charging around $1.12B. So that makes it around $60M for the rocket and $80M for the Dragon.

If we add the $150M for the special studies, that leaves $1.33B for development of the vehicle and the pad work that is needed for human astronauts (mousestronauts are already covered!).

Lets say that each Atlas V 422 ends up costing around $150M, and that Boeing charges the same as SpaceX for each CST-100, then 8 flights should cost around $1.85B. If we add the $150M for the special studies, that leaves $2.2B for development of the vehicle, the pad work, the man-rating of the Atlas V and the pad abort in 2016.

So the difference in development cost between the 2 bids is $900M minus the cost of man-rating the Atlas V.

In total, my wild-ass guess is that about $1.2B of the $1.6B difference (or around 70% of the difference) is due to the rocket and the rest is due to the fact that the CST-100 is behind the Dragon V2 in its development (or Boeing charges more per CST-100).
« Last Edit: 09/20/2014 10:21 am by cartman »

Offline MP99

Re: Commercial Crew Cost Analyses & Discussion
« Reply #8 on: 09/20/2014 10:31 am »


up to 6 flights.  (2 test and 4 for real flights)

Eight. 2 + 6.

Cheers, Martin

Offline dglow

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2067
  • Liked: 2295
  • Likes Given: 4433
Re: Commercial Crew Cost Analyses & Discussion
« Reply #9 on: 09/20/2014 12:19 pm »


up to 6 flights.  (2 test and 4 for real flights)

Eight. 2 + 6.

Cheers, Martin

NASA total: 2 test flights, 4 operational flights minimum, then up to 8 additional operational flights.

Each company will fly three flights (one test + two operational), and as many as four beyond that. At $6.8B NASA is funding as many as 14 flights... plus two operational capsules.  :)

For SpaceX, $2.6B / 7 flights @ 4 seats per flight = $93M per seat including development costs... though the test flight could go up with less than a full complement of four.



corrected per cartman – thanks
« Last Edit: 09/20/2014 11:26 pm by dglow »

Offline cartman

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 534
  • Greece
  • Liked: 524
  • Likes Given: 10431
Re: Commercial Crew Cost Analyses & Discussion
« Reply #10 on: 09/20/2014 01:09 pm »
FWIW, the test flight may not fly with a full complement of four; also: SpaceX's award includes an additional F9 launch, the in-flight abort test.
Thats already paid for by the money they got in the previous phase

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4870
  • Liked: 2784
  • Likes Given: 1097
Re: Commercial Crew Cost Analyses & Discussion
« Reply #11 on: 09/20/2014 04:39 pm »
About the cost of CCtCap compared to Soyuz seats ...

Elon Musk has stated the crew Dragon operational cost will be $140 million / flight, but that was before CCtCap and based on four crew flights per year.  Considering the SpaceX CCtCap award was for significantly more than what Mr. Musk has said development of crew Dragon would be, it is likely NASA's requirements for CCtCap have invalidated the $140 million figure.

Likely on the order of twice that $140M/flight.

Online butters

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2399
  • Liked: 1693
  • Likes Given: 598
Re: Commercial Crew Cost Analyses & Discussion
« Reply #12 on: 09/20/2014 05:02 pm »
CCtCap is designed in a way that obfuscates the underlying marginal cost of the services rendered. Development and "certification" costs are mixed in, and it orders an uncertain number of flights ranging from a extremely low flight rate to a very low flight rate. The first issue prevents outsiders from understanding the costs, while the second issue prevents Boeing and SpaceX from accurately predicting their costs.

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4870
  • Liked: 2784
  • Likes Given: 1097
Re: Commercial Crew Cost Analyses & Discussion
« Reply #13 on: 09/20/2014 05:34 pm »
CCtCap is designed in a way that obfuscates the underlying marginal cost of the services rendered. Development and "certification" costs are mixed in, and it orders an uncertain number of flights ranging from a extremely low flight rate to a very low flight rate. The first issue prevents outsiders from understanding the costs, while the second issue prevents Boeing and SpaceX from accurately predicting their costs.

The latter is not a CCtCap-specific contract design or artifact.  It is a standard FAR IDIQ (Federal Acquisition Regulation, Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity) contract artifact, and is arguably the only rational framing for the CCtCap post-certification missions.  It is intended to allow the government to predict costs; it does not prevent suppliers from predicting their costs, although it makes it more difficult as the prices under such contracts are generally NTE (not to exceed), which as a rule means everyone bids based on worst case (highest expected cost given lowest award quantity).  Which does not mean that will be the price the government will pay, as a number of the post-certification missions may be competitively bid between SpaceX and Boeing and, all other things equal, the lowest bid for a given mission will win the award.

Online sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7202
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1963
Re: Commercial Crew Cost Analyses & Discussion
« Reply #14 on: 09/20/2014 05:54 pm »
Recognizing it is hypothetical, but assuming for the moment both providers conduct successful certification flights, are two flights from each then purchased at a pre-negotiated price, and only at that point are additional flights purchasable at potentially lower price points?
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4870
  • Liked: 2784
  • Likes Given: 1097
Re: Commercial Crew Cost Analyses & Discussion
« Reply #15 on: 09/20/2014 06:20 pm »
Recognizing it is hypothetical, but assuming for the moment both providers conduct successful certification flights, are two flights from each then purchased at a pre-negotiated price, and only at that point are additional flights purchasable at potentially lower price points?

Short answer: No.  Only guarantee is that at least two PCM's (post-certification missions) will be awarded to each; the timing of those awards is TBD and at NASA's discretion.  The not-to-exceed (NTE) price for those (and all subsequent PCM's) are pre-negotiated depending on year of order and quantity ordered in that year.

The only substantive difference between those two guaranteed PCM's and the others is that they may be ordered prior to completion of certification.*  However, the ATP (authority to proceed) for such missions will be issued only after completion of certification.  Subsequent PCM's may be ordered (and subsequent task orders and ATP issued) only after certification is completed.


* edit: e.g., For each CCtCap awardee (Boeing and SpaceX) NASA could conceivable order the two guaranteed PCM's at the earliest opportunity (today?) at the pre-negotiated price.  Award of the other PCM's would have to wait until certification (2017 or whenever).
« Last Edit: 09/20/2014 06:42 pm by joek »

Online butters

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2399
  • Liked: 1693
  • Likes Given: 598
Re: Commercial Crew Cost Analyses & Discussion
« Reply #16 on: 09/20/2014 06:32 pm »
The latter is not a CCtCap-specific contract design or artifact.  It is a standard FAR IDIQ (Federal Acquisition Regulation, Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity) contract artifact, and is arguably the only rational framing for the CCtCap post-certification missions.  It is intended to allow the government to predict costs; it does not prevent suppliers from predicting their costs, although it makes it more difficult as the prices under such contracts are generally NTE (not to exceed), which as a rule means everyone bids based on worst case (highest expected cost given lowest award quantity).  Which does not mean that will be the price the government will pay, as a number of the post-certification missions may be competitively bid between SpaceX and Boeing and, all other things equal, the lowest bid for a given mission will win the award.

Got it, so the government uses this idiotic IDIQ so they can accurately predict how much they will pay by agreeing to overpay for services they subsequently deem unnecessary. Like buying an excessively large data plan for your cell phone so that you never have to worry about overage fees. You just pay a predictably excessive price every month. Makes sense.

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4870
  • Liked: 2784
  • Likes Given: 1097
Re: Commercial Crew Cost Analyses & Discussion
« Reply #17 on: 09/20/2014 07:30 pm »
Got it, so the government uses this idiotic IDIQ so they can accurately predict how much they will pay by agreeing to overpay for services they subsequently deem unnecessary. Like buying an excessively large data plan for your cell phone so that you never have to worry about overage fees. You just pay a predictably excessive price every month. Makes sense.

Close, but not quite.  CCtCap requires a commitment from all awardees to a not to exceed (NTE) price for a given order quantity in a given year.  When it comes time for an award, NASA asks those CCtCap awardees to bid for the mission.  CCtCap awardees are required to bid, and while their price may not be higher than the previously contracted NTE, it may be lower.

Online sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7202
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1963
Re: Commercial Crew Cost Analyses & Discussion
« Reply #18 on: 09/20/2014 08:10 pm »
The not-to-exceed (NTE) [prices] are pre-negotiated depending on year of order and quantity ordered in that year.

When it comes time for an award, NASA asks those CCtCap awardees to bid for the mission.  CCtCap awardees are required to bid, and while their price may not be higher than the previously contracted NTE, it may be lower.

And to be clear, Boeing and SpaceX have different contracts and different NTE price schedules. And since they would be providing the same service those awards would have to go to the vendor whose bid price is lowest. So either Boeing would bid less than its NTE price, or the award(s) would go to SpaceX?
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4870
  • Liked: 2784
  • Likes Given: 1097
Re: Commercial Crew Cost Analyses & Discussion
« Reply #19 on: 09/20/2014 08:31 pm »
And to be clear, Boeing and SpaceX have different contracts and different NTE price schedules. And since they would be providing the same service those awards would have to go to the vendor whose bid price is lowest. So either Boeing would bid less than its NTE price, or the award(s) would go to SpaceX?

Yes--all other things equal--the award would go to SpaceX (assuming they are low bid).  Factors that might skew the award to other than low bid for a particular mission are ...

Quote from: CCtCap RFP
H.8 POST CERTIFICATION MISSION TASK ORDERING PROCEDURES (APPLICABLE TO CLIN 002)

(a)   Requirements for Competition.
In the event that two (2) or more commercial crew transportation contracts are awarded, a fair opportunity to be considered for task orders issued under this contract based upon the specific task order requirements will be provided, unless the Contracting Officer determines that one of the following apply:

(1)   The Agency need is of such urgency that competing the requirements among Contractors would result in unacceptable delays;

(2)   Only one Contractor is capable of providing the service at the level of quality required because the service ordered is unique or highly specialized;

(3)   The order must be issued on a sole-source basis in the interest of economy and efficiency because it is a logical follow-on to an order issued under the contract, provided that all Contractors were given a fair opportunity to be considered for the original order; or

(4)   It is necessary to place an order to satisfy the minimum guarantee per clause B.4, Post Certification Missions (IDIQ) (CLIN 002).
« Last Edit: 09/20/2014 08:56 pm by joek »

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0