ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2030

[Star One]

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) 

We've of course just seen more evidence of that only today!

[rcoppola]

The fact that SpaceX is the only company with a "no comment", implies to me that Orbital/ATK will battle it out with SNC, while SpaceX maintains their pole position.

[yg1968]

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.

Thanks! That answers a lot of the questions and kills a lot of the speculation.

Boeing was down selected because it was not in the competitive range. Orbital, SNC and likely SpaceX are in the competitive range. Nobody knows for sure about LM.

[Star One]

I wonder when the winners are finally announced whether any of the losers will launch a protest through the GAO.

[Steam Chaser]

This puts Boeing's Starliner crew vehicle in an interesting position.  If SpaceX wins a CRS-2 contract, and their cargo vehicle is similar to their crew vehicle, they will continue to have a bunch of ISS cargo missions that will help them with more experience and economies of scale on the shared parts of their systems, while Boeing won't, leaving Boeing with a long-term disadvantage.  In that situation, SpaceX would also have the advantage that, if a problem happens, it could be their cargo missions that expose the problem rather than having it exposed dangerously on a crew mission.

At the same time, there is the possibility that SNC will get a CRS-2 cargo contract, which could in the long term allow SNC to use that as a springboard to a crew capability.  That would provide additional competition to Starliner.

Then there is Blue Origin, which doesn't have an ISS crew or cargo contract, but which could in the long run provide more competition to Starliner.

I'm not sure how Boeing should respond to that situation.  A commercial space station could change the situation for them, but will one be made in time?  Can Boeing do anything to hasten it?

[joek]

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.

Probability of a single provider is zero.  A single provider would also contravene everything NASA has emphasized with regards to competition and redundancy.  All of the capabilities in the table below are required.  Note that the only  provider who can meet all requirements is SNC (based on best information available at this time).

That is why this acquisition is not as simply as it might first appear.  NASA has to construct a complete set of capabilities from providers who individually provide a subset of the required capabilities with different costs--and do so with a competitive acquisition.

Notes on the table below:
1. Boeing CST-100 and SNC Dreamchaser cargo size limited by lack of CBM.
2. Boeing CST-100 unpressurized cargo capability rumored with a trunk similar to SpaceX, but never confirmed.
3. Orb-ATK Cygnus not presently used for unpressurized cargo, although that capability was part of the original COTS proposal.  However, for each mission it was a choice of pressurized or unpressurized (no mix).
4. Most recent Dreamchaser renderings show CBM, so we'll go with that (per comment from okan170).

edit: The table shows single mission capabilities (clarify per comment from ChrisWilson68).
Note Dreamchaser cargo uses NDS not CBM (same as CST-100, per comment from arachnitect).

[Coastal Ron]

I'm not sure how Boeing should respond to that situation.  A commercial space station could change the situation for them, but will one be made in time?  Can Boeing do anything to hasten it?

In the past Boeing has stated that they are into the space transportation business for the long haul, that they see it as a nascent business they want to be apart of as it grows.

However the fiscal reality of that (i.e. profitability) may not support that desire for too long, so it will be interesting to see how many flights per year they need to continue offering space transportation services.

What could be done to change the equation is pretty simple - find out how to reduce their costs.  The Starliner is a capable enough vehicle, but it appears that their overall service is too expensive compared to the competition.

[ChrisWilson68]

All of the capabilities in the table below are required.  Note that the only  provider who can meet all requirements is SNC (based on best information available at this time).

SpaceX or Boeing could tick the "pressurized disposal" box just by saying they can pack it in their vehicle, land it, and take it to the nearest landfill.  Or, they could propose a variant of their vehicle with the heat shield replaced with a dummy material and let it burn up in the atmosphere.

Maybe it's not as cost effective, but then that's really about how the cost compares to the cost of the competition, it's not that they don't have the capability.

[Kansan52]

I wonder when the winners are finally announced whether any of the losers will launch a protest through the GAO.

Less than a week. I.E. with the Bomber protest today.

[Kansan52]

"I'm not sure how Boeing should respond to that situation.  A commercial space station could change the situation for them, but will one be made in time?  Can Boeing do anything to hasten it?"

Fully fund a Bigelow station.

[arachnitect]

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.

Probability of a single provider is zero.  A single provider would also contravene everything NASA has emphasized with regards to competition and redundancy.  All of the capabilities in the table below are required.  Note that the only  provider who can meet all requirements is SNC (based on best information available at this time).

That is why this acquisition is not as simply as it might first appear.  NASA has to construct a complete set of capabilities from providers who individually provide a subset of the required capabilities with different costs--and do so with a competitive acquisition.

Notes on the table below:
1. Boeing CST-100 cargo size limited by lack of CBM.
2. Boeing CST-100 unpressurized cargo capability rumored with a trunk similar to SpaceX, but never confirmed.
3. Orb-ATK Cygnus not presently used for unpressurized cargo, although that capability was part of the original COTS proposal.  However, for each mission it was a choice of pressurized or unpressurized (no mix).

Can Dreamchaser's disposable module use CBM? I think we've only seen it with NDS.

[rayleighscatter]

Just as an FYI it's also worth noting the new date is listed as NLT January 30, 2016. In the past they've always gone with hard dates (and changed them at a later point). It sounds like they want to get the announcement out earlier than that if possible.

SpaceX or Boeing could tick the "pressurized disposal" box just by saying they can pack it in their vehicle, land it, and take it to the nearest landfill.  Or, they could propose a variant of their vehicle with the heat shield replaced with a dummy material and let it burn up in the atmosphere.

Maybe it's not as cost effective, but then that's really about how the cost compares to the cost of the competition, it's not that they don't have the capability.

I think both Starliner and Dragon have return limits that are less than their delivery limits which precludes offering disposal. And if it's not in their proposal to NASA then it's not a capability NASA can consider. Unless either have actually proposed burning up their capsules in the atmosphere then it's not a capability to be considered for awarding the CRS2 contract.

[ChrisWilson68]

Just as an FYI it's also worth noting the new date is listed as NLT January 30, 2016. In the past they've always gone with hard dates (and changed them at a later point). It sounds like they want to get the announcement out earlier than that if possible.

SpaceX or Boeing could tick the "pressurized disposal" box just by saying they can pack it in their vehicle, land it, and take it to the nearest landfill.  Or, they could propose a variant of their vehicle with the heat shield replaced with a dummy material and let it burn up in the atmosphere.

Maybe it's not as cost effective, but then that's really about how the cost compares to the cost of the competition, it's not that they don't have the capability.

I think both Starliner and Dragon have return limits that are less than their delivery limits which precludes offering disposal.

Why would the return limits matter if you want to dispose of the cargo anyway?

And if it's not in their proposal to NASA then it's not a capability NASA can consider. Unless either have actually proposed burning up their capsules in the atmosphere then it's not a capability to be considered for awarding the CRS2 contract.

We don't know the details of their proposals.  Maybe they proposed this, maybe they didn't.  But it would have been easy for them to propose it.

I believe each bidder was allowed to make different proposals for different requirements.  They might have included a disposal proposal because it would have cost them nearly nothing to propose it, and, even if they didn't expect to win, on the off chance they did win it would be extra business.

[joek]

SpaceX or Boeing could tick the "pressurized disposal" box just by saying they can pack it in their vehicle, land it, and take it to the nearest landfill.

Yes, and SpaceX carrying garbage down has been done.  However, I doubt either Dragon or CST-100 could meet the minimum requirements--except maybe combined return/disposal--due to density.  (IIRC there was a discussion of previously which I can't find at the moment.)

Or, they could propose a variant of their vehicle with the heat shield replaced with a dummy material and let it burn up in the atmosphere.

Maybe it's not as cost effective, but then that's really about how the cost compares to the cost of the competition, it's not that they don't have the capability.

Yes, but this is a competitive acquisition; you cannot divorce capability and cost.

[deltaV]

ISTM NASA should see if awarding the CRS 2 contract to a single provider who isn't SpaceX would save much money. The reason to exclude SpaceX is to ensure there are three different providers in the ISS service business, namely SpaceX and Boeing for Commercial Crew and TBD for CRS2 and prevent a near-monopoly by SpaceX. If the selected provider has development delays NASA could extend SpaceX and/or Orbital's CRS1 contract as a stop-gap. If the selected provider falters later SpaceX and/or Boeing could deliver food and other small cargo using their commercial crew vehicles. There would still be three companies in the ISS resupply business (namely SpaceX and Boeing for commercial crew and a third for CRS 2) so no one company would get excessive market-share.

Two questions:
1. Could NASA at this point legally make a single large award to a single provider?
2. Would it be legitimate for NASA to exclude SpaceX for the sole reason of preserving competition? It seems this is sometimes allowed by FAR, but I have no clue if it would be allowed here.

[ChrisWilson68]

SpaceX or Boeing could tick the "pressurized disposal" box just by saying they can pack it in their vehicle, land it, and take it to the nearest landfill.

Yes, and SpaceX carrying garbage down has been done.  However, I doubt either Dragon or CST-100 could meet the minimum requirements--except maybe combined return/disposal--due to density.  (IIRC there was a discussion of previously which I can't find at the moment.)

Dream Chaser Cargo is touted as being able to fulfil all the requested options, including disposal.  But their disposal is limited to the size of the cargo extension that is added to the back of Dream Chaser and jetisoned before entering the atmosphere.  A pair of Dragon missions might be able to do the same thing -- have one return to Earth while the other burns up in the atmosphere.  With economies of scale, a cheaper launch vehicle, and development costs already spent, it's not hard to imagine two cargo Dragon missions would cost less than a single Dream Chaser mission when the development costs of Dream Chaser are amortized over the small number of missions.

Or, they could propose a variant of their vehicle with the heat shield replaced with a dummy material and let it burn up in the atmosphere.

Maybe it's not as cost effective, but then that's really about how the cost compares to the cost of the competition, it's not that they don't have the capability.

Yes, but this is a competitive acquisition; you cannot divorce capability and cost.

Sure, and I don't really expect SpaceX or Boeing is likely to be selected for disposal.  I think Cygnus probably wins there.  But Dragon might just be a cheaper option per kg of disposed mass than Dream Chaser.

[joek]

Why would the return limits matter if you want to dispose of the cargo anyway?

There are specified minimums.  For pressurized down-mass standard mission may include:
1. All return: minimum 2500kg.
2. All disposal: minimum 2500kg.
3. Mixed return-disposal: minimum 1500kg return and 1000kg disposal.

Those minimums are specifically intended to eliminate checking the ""pressurized disposal" box without substantively meeting the need.

[ChrisWilson68]

ISTM NASA should see if awarding the CRS 2 contract to a single provider who isn't SpaceX would save much money. The reason to exclude SpaceX is to ensure there are three different providers in the ISS service business, namely SpaceX and Boeing for Commercial Crew and TBD for CRS2 and prevent a near-monopoly by SpaceX. If the selected provider has development delays NASA could extend SpaceX and/or Orbital's CRS1 contract as a stop-gap. If the selected provider falters later SpaceX and/or Boeing could deliver food and other small cargo using their commercial crew vehicles. There would still be three companies in the ISS resupply business (namely SpaceX and Boeing for commercial crew and a third for CRS 2) so no one company would get excessive market-share.

Two questions:
1. Could NASA at this point legally make a single large award to a single provider?
2. Would it be legitimate for NASA to exclude SpaceX for the sole reason of preserving competition? It seems this is sometimes allowed by FAR, but I have no clue if it would be allowed here.

That would be a really good way to discourage competition and investment by contractors in the future.

If the contractors know NASA is always going to select three, none of them will ever bid to be cheapest.  They'll always bid to be third-cheapest.  If there are only three realistic options, all of them will bid high.

To maintain competition, the buyer can allocate a minority of the purchases to a second supplier, to keep that option for future rounds of bidding, but the buyer should give a significantly larger share of the order to the cheaper supplier.

Having SpaceX lose their CRS business because they won CCtCap would essentially mean SpaceX was stupid to bid for CCtCap.  In the future, if some company already had some business with the government, they would be reluctant to bid for a similar business and invest money in that for fear they would lose their existing business.

SpaceX surely priced their CCtCap bid assuming economies of scale between their cargo and crew business.  Penalizing them for that would not be fair.

Anyway, it's very unlikely NASA is going to do that.  There seems to be strong sentiment for at least two providers, even if that's more expensive than one.  If there are two providers for CRS-2, and if SpaceX is the cheapest, I expect they will be included.

SpaceX would surely contest an award that excluded it in favor of a more expensive option.  SNC lost their protest because NASA successfully argued they were more of a development risk than Boeing, but there's no arguing SpaceX cargo has more development risk than any of the other options.

[ChrisWilson68]

Why would the return limits matter if you want to dispose of the cargo anyway?

There are specified minimums.  For pressurized down-mass standard mission may include:
1. All return: minimum 2500kg.
2. All disposal: minimum 2500kg.
3. Mixed return-disposal: minimum 1500kg return and 1000kg disposal.

Those minimums are specifically intended to eliminate checking the ""pressurized disposal" box without substantively meeting the need.

So any craft that can meet the return minimum can also meet the disposal minimum either by returning 2,500kg to the surface or by compromising its heat shield and burning up in the atmosphere.

[joek]

Dream Chaser Cargo is touted as being able to fulfil all the requested options, including disposal.  But their disposal is limited to the size of the cargo extension that is added to the back of Dream Chaser and jetisoned before entering the atmosphere.  A pair of Dragon missions might be able to do the same thing -- have one return to Earth while the other burns up in the atmosphere.  With economies of scale, a cheaper launch vehicle, and development costs already spent, it's not hard to imagine two cargo Dragon missions would cost less than a single Dream Chaser mission when the development costs of Dream Chaser are amortized over the small number of missions.

As stated in the RFP and part of the evaluation, more than 4-5 missions/yr and more mission types are undesirable.