5. [MA03] How is company financial investment / commitment handled in the price evaluation?It is not. It will be evaluated under MA03, Approach to Lifecycle Cost Management.
12. [TA01] Can you clarify the difference between recovery operations & SAR services with respect to Contractor requirements? According CCT-PLN-1100, recovery is defined as “The process of proceeding to a designated nominal landing site, and retrieving crew, flight crew equipment, cargo, and payloads after a planned nominal landing” The Contractor is required to provide end to end transportation service including crew recovery for nominal landings.Search and Rescue (SAR) is defined as “the process of locating the crew, proceeding to their position, and providing assistance.” NASA retains the responsibility to ensure a SAR capability exists for ascent and reentry phases of flight. The Contractor is responsible for interfacing with the SAR service in order to ensure survival of the crew (interface between CTS system and SAR forces).
13. [Global] Can you tell us more about ISS Services Contract?It’s very early to say much about this contract at this time. What information we have is preliminary and subject to change. We anticipate this will be Firm Fixed Price. We also think that this will be a FAR Part 12 commercial contract. We don’t know the time frame. Early planning is being coordinated between CCP & ISSP.
19. [Global] Are NASA Astronauts on NASA CTS missions anticipated to be Pilots-In- Command (PIC), simply crew members, or both?The Offeror should propose an operations concept along with their proposed design. Depending on the operations concept, some NASA astronauts on the crew could serve as Pilot-in-Command and others would be crew members.
7. [Global] Will the pilot be NASA provided or contractor provided?The approach should be proposed by the Contractor.
We already knew this but this question confirms that the rental model versus the taxi model is up to the contractor.
Quote from: yg1968 on 09/17/2013 04:41 amWe already knew this but this question confirms that the rental model versus the taxi model is up to the contractor. No we did not already know that, which was why there was ambiguity and thus the need for clarification in the Q&A. In any case, it confirms only that several options are open, and says little as to what the model will be or the final decision.
A crew transportation system can either be offered as a taxi or a rental system. Under the taxi system, each company would use its own pilot to ferry the crew. Under a rental arrangement, NASA would rent the entire capsule and would thus provide its own pilot.McAlister explained that it was up to each company to decide which model they preferred. “NASA has not dictated whether the commercial providers should use a taxi or a rental car system. We have left that up to the provider (to decide which) concept of operation is best for them.“Because of our requirement that they have to provide a lifeboat function, it kind of complicates the taxi model to some extent but it doesn’t preclude it. It’s up to the providers to figure out whether they want their pilot or a NASA pilot. As long as they meet our requirements, we shouldn’t care (which option they choose).
After careful consideration, NASA finds that CLIN 004, Capabilities in Excess of Requirements, adds more confusion and complexity than it provides in benefits. Our intention is to not include CLIN 004 in the final RFP. We wish to emphasize that CCtCap CLIN 002 PCM pricing is intended to be comprehensive and include all capabilities of an offeror’s CTS. Rather than capture CLIN 004 capabilities and pricing in the proposals, NASA may request any additional capabilities if needed as part of the Task Ordering clauses.
QuoteAfter careful consideration, NASA finds that CLIN 004, Capabilities in Excess of Requirements, adds more confusion and complexity than it provides in benefits. Our intention is to not include CLIN 004 in the final RFP. We wish to emphasize that CCtCap CLIN 002 PCM pricing is intended to be comprehensive and include all capabilities of an offeror’s CTS. Rather than capture CLIN 004 capabilities and pricing in the proposals, NASA may request any additional capabilities if needed as part of the Task Ordering clauses. https://prod.nais.nasa.gov/eps/eps_data/157250-OTHER-007-001.pdf
Quote from: yg1968 on 11/03/2013 10:25 pmQuoteAfter careful consideration, NASA finds that CLIN 004, Capabilities in Excess of Requirements, adds more confusion and complexity than it provides in benefits. Our intention is to not include CLIN 004 in the final RFP. We wish to emphasize that CCtCap CLIN 002 PCM pricing is intended to be comprehensive and include all capabilities of an offeror’s CTS. Rather than capture CLIN 004 capabilities and pricing in the proposals, NASA may request any additional capabilities if needed as part of the Task Ordering clauses. https://prod.nais.nasa.gov/eps/eps_data/157250-OTHER-007-001.pdfAnyone else getting a security warning on that link?Cheers, Martin
CCkneeCap. (snark willfully stolen from Jeff Foust via Twitter)
Quote from: QuantumG on 11/20/2013 02:56 amCCkneeCap. (snark willfully stolen from Jeff Foust via Twitter)Care to elaborate why this should be "CCkneeCap"?
Quote from: woods170 on 11/20/2013 08:12 amQuote from: QuantumG on 11/20/2013 02:56 amCCkneeCap. (snark willfully stolen from Jeff Foust via Twitter)Care to elaborate why this should be "CCkneeCap"?Jeff was saying to watch out for it, not that this is, yet.Myself, I think a 168 page RFP is just the beginning of the "just as good as an SAA" promise.
That I agree with. It's FAR this time, with all it's associated red-tape and other bureaucratic obstacles. This is not exactly helping to get things speeding along. Neither is the lack of sufficient budget.