Author Topic: NASA Releases Draft RFP for CCtCap (i.e., Phase 2 of Certification)  (Read 94186 times)

Offline manboy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2086
  • Texas, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 134
  • Likes Given: 544
It 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/
« Last Edit: 07/25/2013 04:00 am by manboy »
"Cheese has been sent into space before. But the same cheese has never been sent into space twice." - StephenB

Offline Wayne Hale

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 202
  • Liked: 402
  • Likes Given: 3
To move this discussion into a different direction, let me note that it is always important to see how the government is going to evaluate the various proposals. 

For this competition, buried deep in the verbage of section M, are the factors that will be considered most important.  For the first time in the commercial crew transportation development, cost is considered the most important factor, getting over half the points in the evaluator's scores.  Technical performance, including safety, gets less than one quarter of the total evaluation points.

So what do you think of that?

Offline BrightLight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1381
  • Northern New Mexico
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 924
To move this discussion into a different direction, let me note that it is always important to see how the government is going to evaluate the various proposals. 

For this competition, buried deep in the verbage of section M, are the factors that will be considered most important.  For the first time in the commercial crew transportation development, cost is considered the most important factor, getting over half the points in the evaluator's scores.  Technical performance, including safety, gets less than one quarter of the total evaluation points.

So what do you think of that?
This could be a recognition that all three vendors have offered similar safety and performance capabilities and that in the end, cost is the factor that will determine viability of the winning integrated system.

Offline MP99

To move this discussion into a different direction, let me note that it is always important to see how the government is going to evaluate the various proposals. 

For this competition, buried deep in the verbage of section M, are the factors that will be considered most important.  For the first time in the commercial crew transportation development, cost is considered the most important factor, getting over half the points in the evaluator's scores.  Technical performance, including safety, gets less than one quarter of the total evaluation points.

So what do you think of that?

This could be a recognition that all three vendors have offered similar safety and performance capabilities and that in the end, cost is the factor that will determine viability of the winning integrated system.

In that case, safety could still be the largest factor, they'd draw on that, and the lower factors would decide it.

cheers, Martin

Offline muomega0

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 862
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 1
To move this discussion into a different direction, let me note that it is always important to see how the government is going to evaluate the various proposals. 

For this competition, buried deep in the verbage of section M, are the factors that will be considered most important.  For the first time in the commercial crew transportation development, cost is considered the most important factor, getting over half the points in the evaluator's scores.  Technical performance, including safety, gets less than one quarter of the total evaluation points.

So what do you think of that?
This could be a recognition that all three vendors have offered similar safety and performance capabilities and that in the end, cost is the factor that will determine viability of the winning integrated system.
My first thought was Cost Benefit Analysis-- "Weighing the risks and benefits is sometimes a confusing, and complicated, process, and is not just a monetary or financial decision".  Well, that doesn't sound too good:  how do engineers/companies know when those risks outweigh the possible benefits gained from the design choices then?

Returning to the requirements:
e) the top safety, technical, cost and schedule risks are identified, assessed, and clearly communicated.
 1) Crew Survival capability clearly demonstrates how results of the assessment will be factored into the design
 2) The PSA has been documented, and major risks to crew safety and mission success have been identified, quantified, and integrated in a PSA
 3) Risk mitigation strategies associated with CTS design baseline, cost and schedule have been identified and agreed upon by NASA.


Ah much better, all the "top" risk mitigation strategies will be identified and agreed upon by NASA.  So what about the unknown unknowns? 

What is the value of a human life being used in this CBA?

Offline Lee Jay

  • Elite Veteran
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8566
  • Liked: 3603
  • Likes Given: 327
Analysis shows that should a debris strike occur on the ISS, all modules would lose pressure within three minutes. That means any lifeboat must be able to be undocked in less than that time. With NDS, that would be a simple case of closing the hatch, and hitting the undock button.

Do you even need to hit the undock button?  Isn't closing the hatch enough to save everyone and then you can undock after full station depress if necessary?  I'm thinking it might be necessary to figure out how you are spinning and to get ready to pilot yourself away in a situation-appropriate way before you undock.

Offline Lee Jay

  • Elite Veteran
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8566
  • Liked: 3603
  • Likes Given: 327
To move this discussion into a different direction, let me note that it is always important to see how the government is going to evaluate the various proposals. 

For this competition, buried deep in the verbage of section M, are the factors that will be considered most important.  For the first time in the commercial crew transportation development, cost is considered the most important factor, getting over half the points in the evaluator's scores.  Technical performance, including safety, gets less than one quarter of the total evaluation points.

So what do you think of that?

My first instinct would be to not score safety at all, but rather to make it a requirement to demonstrate that you will meet a required level of safety before you'd get the privilege of being scored in the other areas.

Offline zt

  • Member
  • Posts: 90
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 19
To move this discussion into a different direction, let me note that it is always important to see how the government is going to evaluate the various proposals. 

For this competition, buried deep in the verbage of section M, are the factors that will be considered most important.  For the first time in the commercial crew transportation development, cost is considered the most important factor, getting over half the points in the evaluator's scores.  Technical performance, including safety, gets less than one quarter of the total evaluation points.

So what do you think of that?

My first instinct would be to not score safety at all, but rather to make it a requirement to demonstrate that you will meet a required level of safety before you'd get the privilege of being scored in the other areas.

If someone came up with a system that was only as safe as STS (not safe enough according to NASA's current requirements) but was much cheaper to build and operate than the others, they should have the right to compete and NASA must be forced to either choose them or state that the taxpayer is going to pay X million dollars to lower chance of LOC from 2% to 0.5%, for a launch system they plan to use twice a year for ten years.

Offline MP99

That's 1:3 overall chance of LOC, I think. Edit : vs 1:10.

Cheers, Martin
« Last Edit: 07/26/2013 07:57 pm by MP99 »

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
To move this discussion into a different direction, let me note that it is always important to see how the government is going to evaluate the various proposals. 

For this competition, buried deep in the verbage of section M, are the factors that will be considered most important.  For the first time in the commercial crew transportation development, cost is considered the most important factor, getting over half the points in the evaluator's scores.  Technical performance, including safety, gets less than one quarter of the total evaluation points.

So what do you think of that?

I read it more as NASA may trade price for contract performance risk or other non-cost factors--not necessarily safety.  (Presumably safety is addressed in the requirements which must be met in order to achieve certification.)

Per the dRFP, "The Government will use a trade-off process, as described in FAR 15.101-1, in making the source selection":
Quote from: FAR 15.101-1 Tradeoff process.
15.101-1  Tradeoff process.
(a) A tradeoff process is appropriate when it may be in the best interest of the Government to consider award to other than the lowest priced offeror or other than the highest technically rated offeror.
(b) When using a tradeoff process, the following apply:
(1) All evaluation factors and significant subfactors that will affect contract award and their relative importance shall be clearly stated in the solicitation; and
(2) The solicitation shall state whether all evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than, approximately equal to, or significantly less important than cost or price.
(c) This process permits tradeoffs among cost or price and non-cost factors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal. The perceived benefits of the higher priced proposal shall merit the additional cost, and the rationale for tradeoffs must be documented in the file in accordance with 15.406.


Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
This could be a recognition that all three vendors have offered similar safety and performance capabilities and that in the end, cost is the factor that will determine viability of the winning integrated system.

Nominally agree, although I'd restate... I think it's more that all offerors are nominally capable of meeting the requirements (presumably safety included).  Without meeting requirements, they won't get certified.  Without certification, they won't fly NASA crew.  Those are table stakes.

Given that all offerors are nominally capable of achieving certification, the question is: at what price and risk?  A recurring theme in the dRFP is evaluation of the offeror's ability to perform at the proposed price, e.g.:
Quote from: Section M.3 Price Factor (pg 160)
Relatively low prices will also be evaluated to determine whether there is a risk of default in the event of award to that Offeror. If the Government determines that there is a high risk of default, such a determination may serve as the basis for non-selection.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
To move this discussion into a different direction, let me note that it is always important to see how the government is going to evaluate the various proposals. 

For this competition, buried deep in the verbage of section M, are the factors that will be considered most important.  For the first time in the commercial crew transportation development, cost is considered the most important factor, getting over half the points in the evaluator's scores.  Technical performance, including safety, gets less than one quarter of the total evaluation points.

So what do you think of that?

My first instinct would be to not score safety at all, but rather to make it a requirement to demonstrate that you will meet a required level of safety before you'd get the privilege of being scored in the other areas.

I kind of agree with that. Grading safety can be subjective. Safety was invoked for not cancelling Ares I. ATK also tried to make it a selling point for Liberty. If NASA always selected the most experienced launcher, newer companies such as SpaceX or Blue Origin would never have a chance. If you meet NASA's requirements, you should be allowed to compete.
« Last Edit: 07/27/2013 02:01 am by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Quote
McAlister: the one primary risk for comm'l crew is prematurely eliminating competition. Threatens safe, reliable, cost-effective systems.

Quote
McAlister: even though next comm'l crew phase, CCtCap, will be FAR-based contact, doesn't preclude remaining in partnership with companies.

Quote
McAlister adds he hasn't seen any "significant schedule slippage" among the three CCiCap awardees, although there have been minor changes.

Quote
"It's kind of amazing, right?" - McAlister on the fact NASA does not have an approved operating plan for FY2013, which ends in 2 months.

Quote
McAlister: if FY14 appropriations falls short of request for comm'l crew, NASA would have to decide to downselect early or slip schedule.

Quote
Some NAC HEO cmte members suggesting that having comm'l crew vehicles ready in 2017 should be top-priority goal for program.

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust
« Last Edit: 07/30/2013 03:35 pm by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Quote
McAlister: not getting requested budget will slow us down. Will trade benefits of having 1-3 partners vs. '17 schedule goal.

Quote
McAlister: don't think will be able to keep three partners in next commercial crew round, but hope to have two to maintain competition.

Quote
NAC HEO's Bob Sieck: commercial crew "almost done too well" considering haven't gotten near requested budget.

https://twitter.com/flatoday_jdean
« Last Edit: 07/30/2013 03:34 pm by yg1968 »

Offline Lurker Steve

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1420
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 9
The current set of CCiCap contracts extend well into next summer, which is almost the end of FY 14.

Is McAlister trying to tell us that he doesn't have funding for the milestones on the current contracts, or perhaps that he can't execute the next set of follow on contracts without additional funding ?

I can't imagine this constant whining about funding levels really helps.
If the top line of NASA's budget increases, they will get more funding. Both Republicans and Democrats want to give NASA more funding. The House Republicans just don't think it's possible to get a decent budget deal, so they went with sequestered level budget numbers.

If Congress doesn't get together by October 1st, and get a budget deal done, then it's more of the same with the continuing resolution, which is even lower budget numbers than either the House or Senate budgets.

In the mean time, I would like to see a plan for what they want to do with the increased CCiCap funding. What do we get for an additional 400-500 million per year ?? Someone must have some justification for the 850 million annual need, right ??


Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
I can't imagine that the constant whining about commercial crew is helpful, either. It's pretty obvious that with more funding, we can do things like get to flight testing much earlier.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1413
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 0
To move this discussion into a different direction, let me note that it is always important to see how the government is going to evaluate the various proposals. 

For this competition, buried deep in the verbage of section M, are the factors that will be considered most important.  For the first time in the commercial crew transportation development, cost is considered the most important factor, getting over half the points in the evaluator's scores.  Technical performance, including safety, gets less than one quarter of the total evaluation points.

So what do you think of that?

That is exactly what I would expect if I wanted one particular company to win the next round.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
To move this discussion into a different direction, let me note that it is always important to see how the government is going to evaluate the various proposals. 

For this competition, buried deep in the verbage of section M, are the factors that will be considered most important.  For the first time in the commercial crew transportation development, cost is considered the most important factor, getting over half the points in the evaluator's scores.  Technical performance, including safety, gets less than one quarter of the total evaluation points.

So what do you think of that?

That is exactly what I would expect if I wanted one particular company to win the next round.
I'm more of a SpaceX fan than a Boeing fan, but I really don't want to see an early down-select. I hope this means it will cause Boeing to lobby against early down-select.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
I'm more of a SpaceX fan than a Boeing fan, but I really don't want to see an early down-select. I hope this means it will cause Boeing to lobby against early down-select.

Imagine how SpaceX would react if they got frozen out by Boeing. They'd probably fly next year just to show how wrong the decision was.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 677
  • Likes Given: 195
Putting a high value on low cost is a very sensible thing, in the current fiscal climate. And aerospace has a long history of using the lowest bidder - quite different from NASA's recent contracting history.

But the longer they can avoid the down-select to one, the better.
« Last Edit: 07/31/2013 04:40 am by Lars_J »

Tags:
 

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