Author Topic: Commercial Crew - Discussion Thread 1  (Read 640886 times)

Offline rayleighscatter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1098
  • Maryland
  • Liked: 565
  • Likes Given: 238
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #660 on: 06/14/2015 01:38 pm »

Under the current contracts, if there are funding limitations, NASA could choose to stretch both contracts, or possibly terminate one.  However, in the latter case, you can bet there will be a challenge unless termination is due to a failure to perform by the loser.

What would failure to perform be? Missing a single milestone date by a month?
Failure to perform would be inability to provide the end product/service. NASA would have to prove that the contractor is technically of fiscally unable to reach the end point they were contracted for.

Offline Tomness

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 660
  • Into the abyss will I run
  • Liked: 289
  • Likes Given: 737
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #661 on: 06/14/2015 01:42 pm »

Under the current contracts, if there are funding limitations, NASA could choose to stretch both contracts, or possibly terminate one.  However, in the latter case, you can bet there will be a challenge unless termination is due to a failure to perform by the loser.

What would failure to perform be? Missing a single milestone date by a month?
Failure to perform would be inability to provide the end product/service. NASA would have to prove that the contractor is technically of fiscally unable to reach the end point they were contracted for.

Would that also be under NASA is unable to pay for the milestone? Ergo contractor is fiscally unable to reach the end point they were contracted for.

Online gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10205
  • US
  • Liked: 13885
  • Likes Given: 5933
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #662 on: 06/14/2015 02:48 pm »
It seems to me that the House and Senate are arranging to slow down the Commercial Crew program with less funding and speeding up the SLS by increasing that programs budget with the aim of SLS and Orion launching crew before either Boeing or SpaceX.
I agree and it was totally predictable that they would do that.

Really?  Commercial Crew has manned test flights planned in 2017.  SLS/Orion has manned test flight planned around 2021.
« Last Edit: 06/14/2015 03:51 pm by gongora »

Offline rayleighscatter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1098
  • Maryland
  • Liked: 565
  • Likes Given: 238
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #663 on: 06/14/2015 03:16 pm »

Under the current contracts, if there are funding limitations, NASA could choose to stretch both contracts, or possibly terminate one.  However, in the latter case, you can bet there will be a challenge unless termination is due to a failure to perform by the loser.

What would failure to perform be? Missing a single milestone date by a month?
Failure to perform would be inability to provide the end product/service. NASA would have to prove that the contractor is technically of fiscally unable to reach the end point they were contracted for.

Would that also be under NASA is unable to pay for the milestone? Ergo contractor is fiscally unable to reach the end point they were contracted for.
That would go from being contested by the GAO to being contested in Federal Court as a contract violation. Even exit clauses for fiscal reasons can be tough to enact since the contractor will point out in court that an agency that has an 18 billion dollar budget should be able to make up the shortfall from other areas when it comes to services already contracted for.

It's also a penny-wise pound foolish approach. Anyone bidding on future contracts will build greater liability into their bids because NASA has shown it won't act in good faith which drives costs of everything from launch services to plumbers bills up.

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #664 on: 06/14/2015 05:30 pm »

You might want to review those "dissolve clauses"; they are standard FAR boilerplate (included by reference in the RFP/contracts). There is nothing in those clauses which allows re-compete unless there is a failure to perform.*

Under the current contracts, if there are funding limitations, NASA could choose to stretch both contracts, or possibly terminate one.  However, in the latter case, you can bet there will be a challenge unless termination is due to a failure to perform by the loser.

In short, NASA is contractually committed to two CCtCap providers.  The only thing likely to change that is Congressional legislation which overrides those commitments.


* edit: Or obviously Congressional action.

Ha ha ha. He he he.

If CCtCap had been a Space Act Agreement (SAA) NASA would probably have got out of it but being an ordinary FAR contract NASA is stuck with it for 2 years. The US Government can cancel the contract but still has to pay.

Offline watermod

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 519
  • Liked: 177
  • Likes Given: 153
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #665 on: 06/14/2015 08:51 pm »
As somebody who has voted for the pubs, in the past, I find this troubling on another level of debate.   

The question I posed to my congress critter is: "SLS is an extremely expensive government designed rocket with no real mission.  Commercial Crew is made up of rockets designed by corporations and entrepreneurs to a government purpose with the added benefit of possibly creating a new arena for capitalism to thrive.  As members of The Grand Old Party why are you supporting the socialist rocket and a  make work path for NASA and the USA in space?"

Offline The Amazing Catstronaut

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1065
  • Arsia Mons, Mars, Sol IV, Inner Solar Solar System, Sol system.
  • Liked: 759
  • Likes Given: 626
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #666 on: 06/14/2015 08:56 pm »
As somebody who has voted for the pubs, in the past, I find this troubling on another level of debate.   

The question I posed to my congress critter is: "SLS is an extremely expensive government designed rocket with no real mission.  Commercial Crew is made up of rockets designed by corporations and entrepreneurs to a government purpose with the added benefit of possibly creating a new arena for capitalism to thrive.  As members of The Grand Old Party why are you supporting the socialist rocket and a  make work path for NASA and the USA in space?"

I love the idea of manipulating party partisan sentiment (rightwing or leftwing) to try and get your congressmen to do something bipartisan and universally good for the country - good on you.
Resident feline spaceflight expert. Knows nothing of value about human spaceflight.

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #667 on: 06/14/2015 09:04 pm »
If CCtCap had been a Space Act Agreement (SAA) NASA would probably have got out of it but being an ordinary FAR contract NASA is stuck with it for 2 years. The US Government can cancel the contract but still has to pay.

Unlikely.  SAA would not materially change NASA's rights to unilateraly terminate the agreement, at least if prior SAA's are any indication.  E.g.,The CCiCap SAA's contain the following termination clauses:
Quote from: CCiCap SAA
ARTICLE 16. TERMINATION
A. Termination by Mutual Consent
...
B. Termination for Failure to Perform
...
C. Termination for Unacceptable Risk to Human Life
...
D. Unilateral Termination by NASA
(1) NASA may unilaterally terminate this Agreement upon written notice in the following circumstances: (a) upon a declaration of war by the Congress of the United States; or (b) upon a declaration of a national emergency by the President of the United States; or (c) upon a NASA determination, in writing, that NASA is required to terminate for reasons beyond its control. For purposes of this Article, reasons beyond NASA's control include, but are not limited to, acts of God or of the public enemy, acts of the U.S. Government other than NASA, in either its sovereign or contractual capacity (to include failure of Congress to appropriate sufficient funding), fires, floods, epidemics, quarantine restrictions, strikes, freight embargoes, or unusually severe weather.

edit: And before you jump on the "to include failure of Congress to appropriate sufficient funding", note that does not address the criteria on which a down-select might be based, or the process for a down-select.  Again, there is nothing in those SAA's. or in the CCtCap RFP or contracts which provides for such.  And we already saw what happened with the SAA's--the schedule was stretched to accommodate available funding.  Likely the same will occur for CCtCap--unless Congress forces NASA to do otherwise.
« Last Edit: 06/14/2015 10:12 pm by joek »

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #668 on: 06/14/2015 09:45 pm »
What would failure to perform be? Missing a single milestone date by a month?

Short version...
Quote from: CCtCap sec 52.249-8 and 52.249-9
(a) (1) The Government may, subject to paragraphs (c) and (d) of this clause, by written Notice of Default to the Contractor, terminate this contract in whole or in part if the Contractor fails to --
(i) Perform the work under the contract within the time specified in this contract or any extension;
(ii) Prosecute the work so as to endanger performance of this contract (but see subparagraph (a)(2) of this clause); or
(iii) Perform any of the other provisions of this contract (but see subparagraph (a)(2) of this clause).
(2) The Government’s right to terminate this contract under subdivisions (a)(1)(ii) and (iii) of this clause may be exercised if the Contractor does not cure such failure within 10 days (or more, if authorized in writing by the Contracting Officer) after receipt of the notice from the Contracting Officer specifying the failure

52.249-8 and 52.249-9 are basically the same with respect to cause, but there are some slight differences in rights as CCtCap has separate contract line items (CLIN); 52.249-8 applies to CLIN-002 and -003 (services); 52.249-9 applies to CLIN-001 (DDT&E, aka certification).


Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #669 on: 06/14/2015 10:11 pm »
Would that also be under NASA is unable to pay for the milestone? Ergo contractor is fiscally unable to reach the end point they were contracted for.

No. Milestone payments are essentially pay-as-you-go.  If NASA does not have the required funds to cover the work, they do not authorize the work.  If that results in schedule stretch, increased costs, and missed dates, the contractor is not liable and cannot be held at fault; that would fall under "acts of the Government in either its sovereign or contractual capacity" exclusion clauses.

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #670 on: 06/14/2015 11:23 pm »
Would that also be under NASA is unable to pay for the milestone? Ergo contractor is fiscally unable to reach the end point they were contracted for.

No. Milestone payments are essentially pay-as-you-go.  If NASA does not have the required funds to cover the work, they do not authorize the work.  If that results in schedule stretch, increased costs, and missed dates, the contractor is not liable and cannot be held at fault; that would fall under "acts of the Government in either its sovereign or contractual capacity" exclusion clauses.

So NASA is likely to reschedule the work. It may even add in an optional milestone as a face saving excuse, although the total expenditure will increase.

(Down selecting is not my argument.)

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #671 on: 06/15/2015 12:32 am »
So NASA is likely to reschedule the work.
Yes, if funds are not available to proceed with the previously agreed-upon schedule.
Quote
It may even add in an optional milestone as a face saving excuse, although the total expenditure will increase.
CCtCap has no provision for optional milestones.  Additional milestones or interim progress payments might be added.

Again, however, I caution that CCtCap contains two very different types of contract line items, with very different provisions.
CLIN-001 -- DDTE/certification.  This is fixed-price *not* IDIQ.
CLIN-002 -- Post-certification mssions (PCMs).  This is fixed-price IDIQ services.
CLIN-003 -- Special Studies.  This is fixed-price IDIQ services.

The two primary items of interest are CLIN-001 (DDTE/certification)and CLIN-002 (PCMs), as those represent the bulk of the funds.  However, CLIN-002 (and CLIN-003) notably have specific provisions for funding limitations, whereas CLIN-001 does not (at least to the best of my reading).

That means NASA's only basis for terminating CLIN-001 (DDTE/certification) work by a contractor would be FAR 52.249-2, Termination for Convenience of the Government.*

Such a termination would be an egregious act on NASA's part, especially if both contractors were performing nominally, and likely result in a legal fur-ball.  I seriously doubt NASA would take that step unless forced.  And by "forced", I mean more than Congress simply underfunding CCtCap--but passing legislation stating that NASA must down-select to a single provider.


* Other than a default or failure to perform by the contractor.
« Last Edit: 06/15/2015 12:37 am by joek »

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12095
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18197
  • Likes Given: 12158
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #672 on: 06/15/2015 07:28 am »
So NASA is likely to reschedule the work.
Yes, if funds are not available to proceed with the previously agreed-upon schedule.
Quote
It may even add in an optional milestone as a face saving excuse, although the total expenditure will increase.
CCtCap has no provision for optional milestones.  Additional milestones or interim progress payments might be added.

Again, however, I caution that CCtCap contains two very different types of contract line items, with very different provisions.
CLIN-001 -- DDTE/certification.  This is fixed-price *not* IDIQ.
CLIN-002 -- Post-certification mssions (PCMs).  This is fixed-price IDIQ services.
CLIN-003 -- Special Studies.  This is fixed-price IDIQ services.

The two primary items of interest are CLIN-001 (DDTE/certification)and CLIN-002 (PCMs), as those represent the bulk of the funds.  However, CLIN-002 (and CLIN-003) notably have specific provisions for funding limitations, whereas CLIN-001 does not (at least to the best of my reading).

That means NASA's only basis for terminating CLIN-001 (DDTE/certification) work by a contractor would be FAR 52.249-2, Termination for Convenience of the Government.*

Such a termination would be an egregious act on NASA's part, especially if both contractors were performing nominally, and likely result in a legal fur-ball.  I seriously doubt NASA would take that step unless forced.  And by "forced", I mean more than Congress simply underfunding CCtCap--but passing legislation stating that NASA must down-select to a single provider.


* Other than a default or failure to perform by the contractor.

Terminating contracts when it suits the government has been done before. The clauses required to support multiple scenario's are all there in standard FAR. Official CxP cancellation was done quite some time after the budget for CxP was set to zero. This most-extreme-of-all-cases-of-budget-cuts led to a good number of contracts being terminated outright and some contracts re-negotiated to support SLS.

This sets precedent for a scenario where underfunding of CCP could possibly lead to terminating the current contracts and/or possibly re-negotiate them.
« Last Edit: 06/15/2015 07:30 am by woods170 »

Offline davey142

  • Member
  • Posts: 78
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 671
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #673 on: 06/16/2015 12:24 am »
I've heard people mentioning that the contracts might be re-negotiated.  What exactly does this mean? Smaller payments? Certain milestones get shuffled around?

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #674 on: 06/16/2015 02:19 am »
I've heard people mentioning that the contracts might be re-negotiated.  What exactly does this mean? Smaller payments? Certain milestones get shuffled around?

I suspect that any renegotiation would involve more money for the same work. So the milestones would be stretched and the amount paid for each milestone would increase.

Offline catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11169
  • Enthusiast since the Redstones
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 8785
  • Likes Given: 7815
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #675 on: 06/19/2015 09:58 pm »
Space Station Live: The News on Commercial Crew

Published on Jun 19, 2015
NASA Commentator Kyle Herring talks with Kathy Lueders, the manager of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program, about the status of efforts to develop commercial space vehicles to deliver human crew members to the International Space Station. NASA is working with Boeing and SpaceX as those companies work through milestones to get their vehicles, Boeing’s CST-100 and SpaceX’s Crew Dragon, ready for their first crewed flights to the station, while the space station program is re-configuring the station and preparing for spacewalks to install the new International Docking Adapters to which the new commercial spacecraft will dock.

« Last Edit: 06/19/2015 09:59 pm by catdlr »
Tony De La Rosa, ...I'm no Feline Dealer!! I move mountains.  but I'm better known for "I think it's highly sexual." Japanese to English Translation.

Offline John-H

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 200
  • Liked: 68
  • Likes Given: 219
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #676 on: 06/20/2015 12:24 am »
How long will the first demonstration flights last? I am assuming that the demo flights will not stay up the six months they need to replace Soyuz.

John

Offline darkenfast

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1539
  • Liked: 1829
  • Likes Given: 8739
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #677 on: 06/20/2015 03:38 am »
The following is a quote from Forum member Obi-wan's recent tour of pad 39A, posted in the 39A thread of the SpaceX General sub-forum:

"Just remembered a couple more tidbits from my tour/discussions at 39A - there are ongoing discussions with NASA about crewed launch operations - SpaceX wants to have the crew ingress after fueling operations are complete (which conforms to all previous crewed vehicles), but NASA wants the crew in the vehicle and all of the final support personnel clear of the pad prior to tanking. This new desire may be tied to another SpaceX comment, which is they want to reach the point of taking only 60 minutes from erection to launch. Maybe (and this is my conjecture) NASA feels like having the crew on board for an hour or so is not unusual, and it would allow them to not require the close-out crew to perform operations on a fully fueled vehicle."

What I would like to know is if this conversation is also taking place between NASA and Boeing/ULA regarding operations at their pad and with Atlas and/or Vulcan?  Does anyone know if those launchers can accommodate this desire?  This is a significant change to nearly all manned spaceflight operations, although someone said in the other thread that Atlas-Mercury loaded LOX after the astronaut was sealed in.
Writer of Book and Lyrics for musicals "SCAR", "Cinderella!", and "Aladdin!". Retired Naval Security Group. "I think SCAR is a winner. Great score, [and] the writing is up there with the very best!"
-- Phil Henderson, Composer of the West End musical "The Far Pavilions".

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #678 on: 06/20/2015 03:51 am »
From safety point of view the boarding before fueling seems better, if any goes wrong the crew have LAS.

Online guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7438
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2332
  • Likes Given: 2891
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #679 on: 06/20/2015 06:13 am »
From safety point of view the boarding before fueling seems better, if any goes wrong the crew have LAS.

It is not obvious. So far it seems that the act of fuelling was regarded dangerous, less so the fuelled launch vehicle. So they did fuelling first and then access the capsule. What has changed to change the procedure? Or was it always wrong to fuel first?

A bit of an irony. It was always critisized that SpaceX is not following established procedures. Now they stick to established procedures and it is wrong again.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1