My first response was...How many people took how long to produce this monstrosity. Is NASA placing too many administrative and bureaucratic layers on what is supposed to be a more efficient and less costly endeavor?But I'm not sure that's fair. This is a rather complex undertaking.So can somebody in the know, give an intelligent assessment as to whether the way in which this RFP was written, can fulfill the intended purpose of the program? I have my opinions but I'd just assume get some in-the-trenches real world thoughts on it first. (or not, my eyes started to bleed after page 93)
Quote from: woods170 on 11/20/2013 12:48 pmThat I agree with. It's FAR this time, with all it's associated red-tape and other bureaucratic obstacles. This is not exactly helping to get things speeding along. Neither is the lack of sufficient budget.Well, we all have been afraid of that happening for a while...
That I agree with. It's FAR this time, with all it's associated red-tape and other bureaucratic obstacles. This is not exactly helping to get things speeding along. Neither is the lack of sufficient budget.
Quote from: QuantumG on 11/20/2013 09:35 amQuote from: woods170 on 11/20/2013 08:12 amQuote from: QuantumG on 11/20/2013 02:56 amCCkneeCap. (snark willfully stolen from Jeff Foust via Twitter)Care to elaborate why this should be "CCkneeCap"?Jeff was saying to watch out for it, not that this is, yet.Myself, I think a 168 page RFP is just the beginning of the "just as good as an SAA" promise.That I agree with. It's FAR this time, with all it's associated red-tape and other bureaucratic obstacles. This is not exactly helping to get things speeding along. Neither is the lack of sufficient budget.
Quote from: woods170 on 11/20/2013 08:12 amQuote from: QuantumG on 11/20/2013 02:56 amCCkneeCap. (snark willfully stolen from Jeff Foust via Twitter)Care to elaborate why this should be "CCkneeCap"?Jeff was saying to watch out for it, not that this is, yet.Myself, I think a 168 page RFP is just the beginning of the "just as good as an SAA" promise.
Quote from: QuantumG on 11/20/2013 02:56 amCCkneeCap. (snark willfully stolen from Jeff Foust via Twitter)Care to elaborate why this should be "CCkneeCap"?
CCkneeCap. (snark willfully stolen from Jeff Foust via Twitter)
NASA asks: under FAA law/regs, are NASA astronauts prohibited frm performing op tasks on cmrcl spflts. FAA answers:
I would think that a publicly held company like Boeing or SNC would be more resistant to signing on to the liability clauses in the RFP than a privately held company (SpaceX) would be, or else they would price in the liability at a higher rate, making themselves less competitive. .
NASA’s Commercial Crew Program (CCP) will host a Pre-Proposal Conference on December 4, 2013. This conference will be held at the Press Site News Facility located at Kennedy Space Center, Florida. The purpose of the conference is to provide an overview of the recently released RFP, NNK14467515R, for the CCtCap contract. This briefing will also highlight significant changes since release of the draft RFP. Documents related to this briefing are available here:
The Pre-Proposal Conference was today. The slides are attached to this post:QuoteNASA’s Commercial Crew Program (CCP) will host a Pre-Proposal Conference on December 4, 2013. This conference will be held at the Press Site News Facility located at Kennedy Space Center, Florida. The purpose of the conference is to provide an overview of the recently released RFP, NNK14467515R, for the CCtCap contract. This briefing will also highlight significant changes since release of the draft RFP. Documents related to this briefing are available here:
Thanks again yg. A few other bits of note:1. Mission Suitability Evaluation adds "Inherent Capabilities in excess of NASA requirements ..."4. Cargo has been eliminated (was optional CLIN in draft RFP).
Quote from: joek on 12/05/2013 01:29 amThanks again yg. A few other bits of note:1. Mission Suitability Evaluation adds "Inherent Capabilities in excess of NASA requirements ..."What will they be assessing as "inherent capabilities" ? Re-boost?
Thanks again yg. A few other bits of note:1. Mission Suitability Evaluation adds "Inherent Capabilities in excess of NASA requirements ..."
I would think that a publicly held company like Boeing or SNC would be more resistant to signing on to the liability clauses in the RFP than a privately held company (SpaceX) would be, or else they would price in the liability at a higher rate, making themselves less competitive.
Phased acquisition using competitive down-selection procedures
1852.217-71 Phased Acquisition Using Down-Selection Procedures. As prescribed in 1817.7302(a), insert the following clause:PHASED ACQUISITION USING DOWN-SELECTION PROCEDURES(NOVEMBER 2011) (a) This solicitation is for the acquisition of ______ [insert Program title]. The acquisition will be conducted as a two-phased procurement using a competitive down-selection technique between phases. In this technique, two or more contractors will be selected for Phase 1. It is expected that the single contractor for Phase 2 will be chosen from among these contractors after a competitive down-selection. (b) Phase 1 is for the _____ [insert purpose of phase]. Phase 2 is for _____ [insert general Phase 2 goals]. (c) The competition for Phase 2 will be based on the results of Phase 1, and the award criteria for Phase 2 will include successful completion of Phase 1 requirements. (d) NASA will issue a separate, formal solicitation for Phase 2 that will include all information required for preparation of proposals, including the final evaluation factors. (e) Phase 2 will be synopsized in the Governmentwide Point of Entry (GPE) in accordance with FAR 5.201 and 5.203 unless one of the exceptions in FAR 5.202 applies. Notwithstanding NASA's expectation that only the Phase 1 contractors will be capable of successfully competing for Phase 2, all proposals will be considered. Any other responsible source may indicate its desire to submit a proposal by responding to the Phase 2 synopsis, and NASA will provide that source a solicitation. (f) To be considered for Phase 2 award, offerors must demonstrate a design maturity equivalent to that of the Phase 1 contractors. This demonstration shall include the following Phase 1 deliverables upon which Phase 2 award will be based: _____ [insert the specific Phase 1 deliverables]. Failure to fully and completely demonstrate the appropriate level of design maturity may render the proposal unacceptable with no further consideration for contract award. (g) The following draft Phase 2 evaluation factors are provided for your information. Please note that these evaluation factors are not final, and NASA reserves the right to change them at any time up to and including the date upon which Phase 2 proposals are solicited. [Insert draft Phase 2 evaluation factors (and subfactors, if available), including demonstration of successful completion of Phase 1 requirements.] (h) Although NASA will request Phase 2 proposals from Phase 1 contractors, submission of the Phase 2 proposal is not a requirement of the Phase 1 contract. Accordingly, the costs of preparing these proposals shall not be a direct charge to the Phase 1 contract or any other Government contract. (i) The anticipated schedule for conducting this phased procurement is provided for your information. These dates are projections only and are not intended to commit NASA to complete a particular action at a given time. [Insert dates below]. Phase 1 award - Phase 2 synopsis - Phase 2 proposal requested - Phase 2 proposal receipt - Phase 2 award -
Quote from: rcoppola on 07/24/2013 08:53 pmIt would be interesting if SpaceX could use a crewed Dragon variant for the Feb 2015 CRS delivery of the new docking mech. That's how ATLAS was going to be installed.http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/nasa-develops-new-docking-system-for-constellation-220598/
It would be interesting if SpaceX could use a crewed Dragon variant for the Feb 2015 CRS delivery of the new docking mech.