Author Topic: NASA Releases Draft RFP for CCtCap (i.e., Phase 2 of Certification)  (Read 94200 times)

Offline Chris Bergin

So those of you who use one thread and one thread only....

The thread for the wxcellent and in-depth write up from Yves-A. Grondin

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/08/nasa-outlines-plans-commercial-crew-certification/

Is here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32531.0
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
There were a couple updates in the last few weeks:
1. Q&A 2 (Sep 07, 2013)
- Questions and Answers - Post 2: 157250-OTHER-003-001.pdf
2. Interim Update 1 (Sep 13, 2013)
- Introduction: 157250-OTHER-004-001.pdf
- Updates to dRFP: 157250-OTHER-004-002.docx
- Update to Attachment J-02: 157250-OTHER-004-003.docx

I haven't sorted through all of it, but the more interesting parts generally appear to be in the first part of Q&A 2.  Beyond that, there appear to be three broad categories that consume most of the verbiage: (1) clarifications and other contract minutiae; (2) requests for clarifications on liability and insurance requirements; and (3) other.

While the response to quite a few of the questions is "Response is in work", that suggests a healthy conversation continues between NASA and providers to figure out What It All Means.  Some of the more interesting tidbits from my brief review of the Q&A ...

Quote
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.

Quote
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).

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

...

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Thanks for the update.

We already knew this but this question confirms that the rental model versus the taxi model is up to the contractor.

Quote
7. [Global] Will the pilot be NASA provided or contractor provided?
The approach should be proposed by the Contractor.

See this article for a prior discussion on the rental versus taxi models:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/05/mcalister-discusses-commercial-crew-certification/
« Last Edit: 09/17/2013 04:44 am by yg1968 »

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
We 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.
« Last Edit: 09/17/2013 05:36 am by joek »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
We 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.

McAlister had already say so at the NAC meeting last April (see the text below). So we (on this forum) already knew this. But I suppose the answer makes it official.  It's unlikely that NASA will change its mind on this in the final RFP. It will be up to the contractor to decide which model they wish to offer.

Quote
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).

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/05/mcalister-discusses-commercial-crew-certification/
« Last Edit: 09/17/2013 03:09 pm by yg1968 »

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Sorry should have clarified... There are three different contract items or mission classes, and much of the discussion is ambiguous as to which is being addressed:

1. Certification flight (part of CCtCap base contract).  Crew composition and mission duration appear to be an open question and TBP by the provider.  Whether that is a taxi or rental car model appears to be largely dependent on the required certification mission duration.

2. Post-certification flights (optional part of CCtCap).  While this is TBP and up to the provder, as you point out, available information suggests a rental car model is likely, per McAlister's comment.

3. ISS crew transportation services (not part of CCtCap).  I expect this would follow the same model as (2).  However, the RFP and requirements are still in the formative stages (per the Q&A).

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Quote
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.

https://prod.nais.nasa.gov/eps/eps_data/157250-OTHER-007-001.pdf

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
CCiCap has been delayed by a couple of months because of the government shutdown. Proposals are due on January 22, 2014. Awards will be made no later than September 2014.

https://prod.nais.nasa.gov/eps/eps_data/157250-OTHER-006-001.pdf
« Last Edit: 11/04/2013 11:08 pm by yg1968 »

Offline manboy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2086
  • Texas, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 134
  • Likes Given: 544
Thanks for the links.
"Cheese has been sent into space before. But the same cheese has never been sent into space twice." - StephenB

Online MP99

Quote
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.

https://prod.nais.nasa.gov/eps/eps_data/157250-OTHER-007-001.pdf

Anyone else getting a security warning on that link?

Cheers, Martin

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Quote
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.

https://prod.nais.nasa.gov/eps/eps_data/157250-OTHER-007-001.pdf

Anyone else getting a security warning on that link?

Cheers, Martin

Something weird happened but the document now downloads without a warning on Firefox.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
The final RFP for CCtCap was released today:
https://prod.nais.nasa.gov/cgibin/eps/sol.cgi?acqid=158768

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
The most relevant documents in the final RFP are the following two documents:

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
CCkneeCap.  :'(

(snark willfully stolen from Jeff Foust via Twitter)
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Online sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7202
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
The most insightful bit of the press release seems to be the final phrase in the first sentence.
http://www.nasa.gov/press/2013/november/nasa-advances-effort-to-launch-astronauts-again-from-us-soil-to-space-station/

NASA took another step Tuesday to restore an American capability to launch astronauts from U.S. soil to the International Space Station by the end of 2017, subject to the availability of adequate funding.
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18201
  • Likes Given: 12162
CCkneeCap.  :'(

(snark willfully stolen from Jeff Foust via Twitter)


Care to elaborate why this should be "CCkneeCap"?
« Last Edit: 11/20/2013 08:12 am by woods170 »

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
CCkneeCap.  :'(

(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.

Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18201
  • Likes Given: 12162
CCkneeCap.  :'(

(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.

Offline Elmar Moelzer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3661
  • Liked: 849
  • Likes Given: 1062
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.
Well, we all have been afraid of that happening for a while...
Just wonderful how politics is able to ruin everything, all the time.
:(

Offline rcoppola

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2355
  • USA
  • Liked: 1967
  • Likes Given: 970
My first response was...How many people took how long to produce this monstrosity. Is NASA placing too many administrative and bureaucratic layers on what is supposed to be a more efficient and less costly endeavor?

But I'm not sure that's fair. This is a rather complex undertaking.

So can somebody in the know, give an intelligent assessment as to whether the way in which this RFP was written, can fulfill the intended purpose of the program? I have my opinions but I'd just assume get some in-the-trenches real world thoughts on it first. (or not, my eyes started to bleed after page 93)
Sail the oceans of space and set foot upon new lands!
http://www.stormsurgemedia.com

Tags:
 

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