If it's a fixed-price contract, what difference does it make what the actual supplier expenses are? The cost to the government is the same whatever the supplier's expenses might be. If the expenses were so high that the supplier went out of business, then yes it would be an issue, but that possibility is negligible. Shelby is just fishing for a semi-plausible excuse to kill commercial crew.
Quote from: Prober on 07/07/2014 01:18 pm...at least they tried to keep the lights on.Isn't that one of the definitions of "pork"? That work is funded even though work is not really needed?If so, then as a taxpayer I'm not happy about that, regardless what department or agency it's in.
...at least they tried to keep the lights on.
I would rather have a lower NASA budget and a lower budget for commercial crew than have language like this remain in the bill. This language goes against the very nature of commercial partnerships. It needs to go.
While NASA has chosen to use a FAR-based contract, it has also waived significant portions of the standard FAR-based contract, including verifiable cost data, capping repayment of funds in case of inability to perform, and rights in data.
NASA has informed the Committee that these deviations were necessary to ensure competition. However, with multiple entrants that collectively have extensive Federal contracting experience, the Committee questions the true need to waive these traditional requirements.
As with any such project, the technical risk and probability for cost growth is high. Without the proper foundation and necessary requirements for certified cost and pricing data, NASA will have no insight into ongoing cost growth that could jeopardize the viability of the program.
In order for NASA and Congress to have the appropriate level of transparency to ensure that the cost of the program is in line with the activities undertaken and that it does not grow exponentially, the Committee directs NASA to maintain FAR 15.403–4, related to certified cost and pricing data for prime contractors, for any contracts entered into to support the development of a commercial crew vehicle.
Further, NASA shall require quarterly reports to be submitted to NASA and the Committee that detail the funds invested by NASA and by the awardees during the previous quarter and cumulatively, including legacy launch systems that may be integrated with the crew vehicle.
The Committee agrees with concern expressed by the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel, the OIG, and others that Space Act agreements may not give NASA sufficient oversight to correct safety defects. The Committee directs NASA to only place astronauts on a commercial crew vehicle that NASA acquired under a FAR contract that allows NASA to require the company to meet all safety requirements.
The Committee encourages NASA to develop plans to fully utilize NASA-owned rocket testing infrastructure for commercially developed launch vehicles to ensure that these vehicles are not only tested in the same manner as Government-developed launch vehicles but at the same facilities to ensure consistency in testing across all potential vehicles.
The additional investments NASA is currently making to advance crew vehicle development will ultimately enable greater competition for ISS cargo resupply missions through the creation of more viable entrants than were originally available. With a more mature competitive environment, the Committee believes that exceptions to procurement practices to provide reliable cargo transport may be unnecessary. As NASA begins soliciting participants for the second round of cargo resupply missions, certified cost and pricing data should be required and made available to NASA.
QuoteFurther, NASA shall require quarterly reports to be submitted to NASA and the Committee that detail the funds invested by NASA and by the awardees during the previous quarter and cumulatively, including legacy launch systems that may be integrated with the crew vehicle.I'm not sure what this is intended to accomplish beyond the existing CCtCap requirements. CCtCap proposals are already required to include, on a per-milestone basis, the contractor contribution and the NASA contribution (price to NASA). NASA pays on a per-milestone basis. I have no idea what the typical milestone schedule looks like, but I bet they aren't too many months apart. Maybe the Senators know something more and can explain.
Quote from: yg1968 on 07/07/2014 03:18 pmI would rather have a lower NASA budget and a lower budget for commercial crew than have language like this remain in the bill. This language goes against the very nature of commercial partnerships. It needs to go.I wouldn't go so far as saying it goes against the very nature of commercial partnerships, although it certainly goes against the nature of competitive and commercial acquisitions, at least as embodied in FAR.
Should be less Shelby bashing. Senator Shelby is one of the "good guys". Many might disagree, but he is an old school politician. They sat down and worked with each other, compromised etc. Whatever people think of Shelby, and a few other politicians; they understood NASA and congress. When they are gone IMHO, they will be missed at least they tried to keep the lights on.
Op-eds on the Shelby language:http://www.spacenews.com/article/opinion/41086focusing-on-priorities-in-human-access-to-leo
Cost and pricing data are the principal means of setting a reasonable price and protecting taxpayer interests. Normally, human spaceflight would fall into this category. The only meaningful customer is the government and it has rather unique requirements. A truly healthy free market does not exist. Moreover, the taxpayers are contributing significant resources to the development of these capabilities, which they then will not own. Despite constant rhetoric to the contrary, there is nothing “commercial” about the commercial crew program. Without government demand, funding and support, the private companies working with NASA likely would not be in this business. Investors and shareholders would not stand for the expenditure of such resources, preferring to chase higher returns in a more profitable sector. This may be changing, but not in a time frame useful for government needs. From that standpoint, the Senate Appropriations Committee’s move to apply the FAR’s cost and pricing data to NASA’s efforts to acquire crewed access to low Earth orbit (LEO) makes perfect sense. However — and there is always a “however” in public policy — it is also a mistake in this case. The United States does not apply the cost and pricing provisions of the FAR (among others) to its procurement of human launch services from Russia.
More on the Shelby language:http://www.al.com/news/huntsville/index.ssf/2014/07/americas_most_influential_-_an.html
NASA and the White House don't like Shelby's rule, either, but the requirement is in the law as it came out of committee and awaits action on the Senate floor. To get rid of it, House and Senate negotiators will have to compromise after the budget measure passes the Senate and goes for reconciliation with the House budget.
Quote from: yg1968 on 07/10/2014 01:08 amMore on the Shelby language:http://www.al.com/news/huntsville/index.ssf/2014/07/americas_most_influential_-_an.htmlThanks yg1968!Quote from: from the link aboveNASA and the White House don't like Shelby's rule, either, but the requirement is in the law as it came out of committee and awaits action on the Senate floor. To get rid of it, House and Senate negotiators will have to compromise after the budget measure passes the Senate and goes for reconciliation with the House budget.I wonder what the probability is that the language can be removed.
Meanwhile, the Senate has not passed any appropriations bills for the fiscal year starting Oct. 1 due to a disagreement over amendments. A stopgap funding measure, also known as a continuing resolution, appears likely to keep the government running and avoid a shutdown through the midterm elections.
Unable to reach agreement on amendment procedures with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) pulled H.R. 4660, the “minibus” appropriations package, from consideration on the Senate floor on June 19. The bill includes FY15 appropriations for HUD and the Department of Transportation, as well as the USDA and Commerce, Justice, and Science appropriations bills.
I think I would play political hardball with this language for accountability and expand it to the procurement of Russian commercial rides. The Russians would say FU and thus shut down flights to the ISS and might force it removal...
Quote from: Rocket Science on 07/11/2014 08:12 pmI think I would play political hardball with this language for accountability and expand it to the procurement of Russian commercial rides. The Russians would say FU and thus shut down flights to the ISS and might force it removal...That seems like not a good outcome to me.
Not entirely surprising but the House intends to pass a CR next week:http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/republicans-prep-short-term-funding-to-keep-government-open-through-election-day-20140721