ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2030

[yg1968]

The quote from the SpaceNews article is more complete, it says that:

NASA, she said, “has decided to re-open discussions with offerors in the competitive range for NASA’s CRS-2 contract

So it's not just SNC. It's all offerors in the competitive range. This implies that Boeing wasn't in the competitive range.

There is also this article:

SNC's Krystal Scordo said via email that the company was notified this morning that "the Government has decided to re-open discussions with offerors" and "SNC was selected to re-open discussions."

http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/nasa-again-delays-award-of-crs2-commercial-cargo-contracts-boeing-out

[sdsds]

I was not aware this option was available to the decision authority. Is it common in NASA procurement to eliminate some offerors and then reopen discussions with the others? Does doing this require some sort of justification for other than full and open competition?

[yg1968]

NASA has had finalists before. It tends to happen when there are many proposals. I wouldn't read too much into the opening discussions statement by SNC. I think that it means what NASA says it means that it is pursuing its decision process with the remaining companies.

[woods170]

This is noteworthy......

http://www.wsbt.com/news/business/nasa-to-award-new-international-space-station-supply-contract/36275316

"SpaceX is the only bidder that's proposing to use a US-made rocket engine, which gives it an edge over the other competitors which are using Russian rocket engines, Caceres said."

"Winning a share of the existing supply contract was crucial to the early success of both SpaceX and Orbital ATK, according to Marco Caceres, senior space analyst for the Teal Group."

Then you have this....

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-photos-show-massive-rocket-explosion-virginia-185458958.html

This stinks, clearly it appears someone has chosen to use negative PR to obtain contracts.

Don't agree, I think you are seeing things that are not actually there.
The release of the high-quality images of the Antares mishap, by NASA,  happened shortly after the NASA summary of the mishap was released, again by NASA.
CRS-2 decision being delayed is done by NASA.

How would you add this all up into the statement you made about obtaining contracts?

[FutureSpaceTourist]

There appeared to be similar oddities during the last Commercial Crew down-select. Rumors that Boeing was cut, then apparently re-instated. (If my memory is correct)

I think this time is different. People from the various bidders are going on the record with media organisations to say that NASA has informed them whether or not their proposal is still being considered for a contract. That is quite different from all the anonymous, unofficial rumours during CC down-select.

I don't doubt that Boeing have now been eliminated from this competition.

[woods170]

Oh for crying out loud!  What could possibly be going on behind the scenes to cause a last minute delay after already delaying the decision by months?

To be this last minute I would have to think someone up the chain in NASA refused to sign off on the final decision. There had to have been plenty of meetings and briefings on how it would proceed so either the final decisions weren't well enumerated or said executive didn't agree with the weighting of certain attributes. My guess at least.

There appeared to be similar oddities during the last Commercial Crew down-select. Rumors that Boeing was cut, then apparently re-instated. (If my memory is correct)

Not quite. In the case of CRS-2 it has actually been confirmed by Boeing that they are out:

Boeing spokeswoman Kelly Kaplan said Nov. 5 that NASA informed the company shortly before announcing the award delay that it was no longer considering the company for a contract. NASA did not give a reason for the delay, she said. Boeing has requested a debrief from NASA, which may not take place until after the contracts are finally awarded.

In the case of CCP it was just a rumour that Boeing had initially been thrown out (to be re-instated later). That rumour was never actually confirmed by anyone, most certainly not by Boeing.

Also, there is the rumour that the LockMart proposal has been dropped from the CRS-2 competition. The source of this rumour is a Wall Street Journal article written by the infamous Andy Pasztor. The Denver Post threw in a similar story, on the same date, for good measure.
However, this rumour has not been confirmed by anyone, least of all LockMart:

Industry sources said earlier this year that NASA has since dropped Lockheed Martin from consideration, but there has been no formal notice of a downselect by NASA or Lockheed.

So, for all we know LockMart might actually still be 'in' the CRS-2 competition. The only bidding party officially confirmed to have been dropped is Boeing. Until further notice, all other bidders are still 'in', for all we know...

[chalz]

If the budget does reduce funding for the contract would it be possible or sensible to give 100% of that to one of Lockheed or SNC? Rather than split an inadequate amount, give a generous amount to someone still in development.

[NovaSilisko]

If the budget does reduce funding for the contract would it be possible or sensible to give 100% of that to one of Lockheed or SNC? Rather than split an inadequate amount, give a generous amount to someone still in development.

If they were to do that, I find it very unlikely that they would pick one of the unproven options.

[guckyfan]

If the budget does reduce funding for the contract would it be possible or sensible to give 100% of that to one of Lockheed or SNC? Rather than split an inadequate amount, give a generous amount to someone still in development.

If they were to do that, I find it very unlikely that they would pick one of the unproven options.

Also not to an option that does not provide downmass. It could only be SpaceX which offer the most complete range of services. Pressurized mass, unpressurized mass, downmass incl. supply of electricity to freezers. Likely the lowest price too. Or will Orbital become cheaper too with increased volume of Cygnus?

But it really is a most unlikely choice. There will be at least two.

[Star One]

If the budget does reduce funding for the contract would it be possible or sensible to give 100% of that to one of Lockheed or SNC? Rather than split an inadequate amount, give a generous amount to someone still in development.

If they were to do that, I find it very unlikely that they would pick one of the unproven options.

Also not to an option that does not provide downmass. It could only be SpaceX which offer the most complete range of services. Pressurized mass, unpressurized mass, downmass incl. supply of electricity to freezers. Likely the lowest price too. Or will Orbital become cheaper too with increased volume of Cygnus?

But it really is a most unlikely choice. There will be at least two.

It may come down to a question of if Orbital is unseated from its position by one of the challengers.

[Dante80]

Even if NASA gives the same opportunity to all companies, this tilts the process in favor of companies that can modify their bids to be more compelling at the expense of other companies that cannot make their bids more compelling.

Wouldn't this though be the best thing for NASA (in that hypothetical situation)? I mean, if NASA can leverage a round of bid modifications to squeeze more out of the contestants, wouldn't this actually result to a better deal for NASA? There is always a better BaFO than your last BaFO.

[GWH]

If NASA were to select 3 this would require them to renegotiate with the competitive bidders would it not? Did the bid specify competition for a bulk number of flights/tonnes or cost per individual mission?

[guckyfan]

I was just rethinking the downmass requirement. Assuming the backlog is soon cleared and both crew vehicles provide some not insignificant downmass capability. Maybe downmass in CRS is no longer required, if at least one of the two crew vehicles can accomodate freezers?

[Prober]

This is noteworthy......

http://www.wsbt.com/news/business/nasa-to-award-new-international-space-station-supply-contract/36275316

"SpaceX is the only bidder that's proposing to use a US-made rocket engine, which gives it an edge over the other competitors which are using Russian rocket engines, Caceres said."

"Winning a share of the existing supply contract was crucial to the early success of both SpaceX and Orbital ATK, according to Marco Caceres, senior space analyst for the Teal Group."

Then you have this....

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-photos-show-massive-rocket-explosion-virginia-185458958.html

This stinks, clearly it appears someone has chosen to use negative PR to obtain contracts.

Don't agree, I think you are seeing things that are not actually there.
The release of the high-quality images of the Antares mishap, by NASA,  happened shortly after the NASA summary of the mishap was released, again by NASA.
CRS-2 decision being delayed is done by NASA.

How would you add this all up into the statement you made about obtaining contracts?

Maybe the responsible thing NASA could have done would be to hold their report, and these additional pictures and not release on 10/29/15 until CRS2 awards were announced?
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35939.msg1440491#msg1440491

The bidding process should be "clean" and reflect and appearances of any improprieties.

Clearly we all wanted the information on the Orbital failure. 

That said, and be fair in this process one might ask where are all the pics of the CRS-3 failure?  Why has no video, or other pics of that failure been released?  Yes SX is in the middle of a return to flight and in some part cleared, or in the process of being cleared with the FAA.

However, we are talking about fairness in this bidding process here.  Clearly, if you read any type of material a new campaign regarding "Russian Engines" was begun, and in process.

You are entitled to your opinion, just as I am to post what is happening from the many articles out there recently about "Russian Engines".   It still stinks.

[Lars-J]

So, for all we know LockMart might actually still be 'in' the CRS-2 competition. The only bidding party officially confirmed to have been dropped is Boeing. Until further notice, all other bidders are still 'in', for all we know...

You'll have to forgive my skepticism... Yes, they are saying that, but I won't believe Boeing is out until the final announcement is made. Not before that. (never count Boeing out for a government contract, they are like a creature that won't stay dead, always creeping back) 

[Prober]

Boeing dumped from NASA’s $3.5B cargo-flight competition
http://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-dumped-from-nasas-35b-cargo-flight-contest/

NASA to award new International Space Station supply contract
http://www.hartfordbusiness.com/article/20151105/NEWS02/311059938

[TrevorMonty]

So, for all we know LockMart might actually still be 'in' the CRS-2 competition. The only bidding party officially confirmed to have been dropped is Boeing. Until further notice, all other bidders are still 'in', for all we know...

You'll have to forgive my skepticism... Yes, they are saying that, but I won't believe Boeing is out until the final announcement is made. Not before that. (never count Boeing out for a government contract, they are like a creature that won't stay dead, always creeping back) 

You may have a point Lars.

http://www.geekwire.com/2015/boeing-and-lockheed-protest-air-forces-snub-on-long-range-bomber/

[freakdog]

I was just rethinking the downmass requirement. Assuming the backlog is soon cleared and both crew vehicles provide some not insignificant downmass capability. Maybe downmass in CRS is no longer required, if at least one of the two crew vehicles can accomodate freezers?

The Crew vehicle stays with the crew, so the downmass wouldn't happen until the crew left, which could be 200 days later.

[arachnitect]

If NASA were to select 3 this would require them to renegotiate with the competitive bidders would it not? Did the bid specify competition for a bulk number of flights/tonnes or cost per individual mission?

Offerors bid a "matrix" of missions with prices for 1 to 5 missions each year from 2018-2024 and NASA assembles the portfolio from that.

IE an offeror could bid 3 missions in 2019 for $1B, 4 missions in 2019 for $1.2B, etc.

Guaranteed minimum is 6 missions (total).

[joek]

I was not aware this option was available to the decision authority. Is it common in NASA procurement to eliminate some offerors and then reopen discussions with the others? Does doing this require some sort of justification for other than full and open competition?

This competition is still in progress; those in the competitive range have not been eliminated until source selection is complete.  It is typical for discussions and negotiations to occur with offerors after the competitive range is established and those outside the competitive range have been eliminated.  It is also typical proposals to be revised after those discussions and negotiations.

The establishment of a competitive range, and elimination of those outside the competitive range, is intended to limit time and effort for subsequent steps in the process.  From NASA FAR Supplement 1815.306(c)(2): A total of no more than three proposals shall be a working goal in establishing the competitive range.  Note that three is a goal, not a rule.

The short form:
1. Issue RFP
2. Evaluate proposals
a) Establish competitive range
b) Implicit down-select to those in the competitive range
3. Discuss and negotiate with offerors in competitive range
4. Request final proposal revisions (FPR)
5. Evaluate final proposals
6. Award contracts

There is typically only one round of proposal revisions leading to the final proposals; the CRS-2 proposal revisions were submitted last summer.  What appears to be unusual is that there may be another round of discussions-negotiations and proposal revisions.