Source Selection and Evaluation CriteriaRelative Order of Importance of Evaluation Factors: Mission Suitability and Past Performance factors, when combined, are significantly more important than Price factor. The Mission Suitability factor is more important than Price; The Price factor is approximately equal to the Past Performance factor.
Don't forget this:QuoteNotwithstanding paragraph (a), the competition in Phase 2 may result in the award of multiple contracts if budget allows.In other words, whether or not a down-select to just one happens depends on whether or not there there's enough money. No surprise there.
Notwithstanding paragraph (a), the competition in Phase 2 may result in the award of multiple contracts if budget allows.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 09/20/2011 12:18 amQuote from: robertross on 09/20/2011 12:13 amQuote from: mmeijeri on 09/20/2011 12:10 amQuote from: Robotbeat on 09/20/2011 12:07 amDon't forget this:QuoteNotwithstanding paragraph (a), the competition in Phase 2 may result in the award of multiple contracts if budget allows.In other words, whether or not a down-select to just one happens depends on whether or not there there's enough money.Good catch! I'm slightly relieved, but not much.I don't know...they could be referring to just Phase 1 and keep ALL of the original companies, and still down-select to the final (and single) provider.Or, something more subtle, like picking CST-100 for primary provider, but still paying (a lesser amount) for testing and capability of crewed Dragon. Makes more sense with Dragon, since it may still be used with cargo delivery even if it loses on primary crew provider.It really depends on what Congress does. If Congress doesn't provide enough money, there'll only be one provider. If they provide more, NASA will be able to afford two (better for the market, better for redundancy).But they're already paying for Dragon. And now with all these CCDev payments, they have helped advance Dragon to a near-working state. The big loser will be the Dreamchaser, unfortunately, as it has the furthest to go (IMO).
Quote from: robertross on 09/20/2011 12:13 amQuote from: mmeijeri on 09/20/2011 12:10 amQuote from: Robotbeat on 09/20/2011 12:07 amDon't forget this:QuoteNotwithstanding paragraph (a), the competition in Phase 2 may result in the award of multiple contracts if budget allows.In other words, whether or not a down-select to just one happens depends on whether or not there there's enough money.Good catch! I'm slightly relieved, but not much.I don't know...they could be referring to just Phase 1 and keep ALL of the original companies, and still down-select to the final (and single) provider.Or, something more subtle, like picking CST-100 for primary provider, but still paying (a lesser amount) for testing and capability of crewed Dragon. Makes more sense with Dragon, since it may still be used with cargo delivery even if it loses on primary crew provider.It really depends on what Congress does. If Congress doesn't provide enough money, there'll only be one provider. If they provide more, NASA will be able to afford two (better for the market, better for redundancy).
Quote from: mmeijeri on 09/20/2011 12:10 amQuote from: Robotbeat on 09/20/2011 12:07 amDon't forget this:QuoteNotwithstanding paragraph (a), the competition in Phase 2 may result in the award of multiple contracts if budget allows.In other words, whether or not a down-select to just one happens depends on whether or not there there's enough money.Good catch! I'm slightly relieved, but not much.I don't know...they could be referring to just Phase 1 and keep ALL of the original companies, and still down-select to the final (and single) provider.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 09/20/2011 12:07 amDon't forget this:QuoteNotwithstanding paragraph (a), the competition in Phase 2 may result in the award of multiple contracts if budget allows.In other words, whether or not a down-select to just one happens depends on whether or not there there's enough money.Good catch! I'm slightly relieved, but not much.
Don't forget this:QuoteNotwithstanding paragraph (a), the competition in Phase 2 may result in the award of multiple contracts if budget allows.In other words, whether or not a down-select to just one happens depends on whether or not there there's enough money.
So, 7.5% is small business utilization? What the heck? I guess somebody called a Congress person.
For any acquisition strategy developed for CCDev3, NASA is encouraged to consider the potential contributions of women-, minority- and veteran-owned firms.
Congress also approved less funding than was requested for the effort (for this year). This obviously has consequences, and you're right it was foreseeable that one of the consequences of reduced funding is down-select to only 1 provider.Also, there still will be redundancy, far more than at any time during Shuttle (which could not function as lifeboat).Also, the skin-in-the-game requirement for CCDev (the development portion) means more jobs-per-NASA-dollar than other typical NASA endeavors (the money comes from the competitors).
So, 7.5% is small business utilization? What the heck? I guess somebody called a Congress person. I remember hearing about some subcontractors whining about how SpaceX wouldn't use their over-priced solution...(I think they advertised on this site, actually... hope this doesn't get me in trouble!)
So, do we start a poll on which company will be the winner? I'm betting that Boeing & the CST-100 will be selected. Why? Experience in spaceflight.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 09/20/2011 12:22 amSo, 7.5% is small business utilization? What the heck? I guess somebody called a Congress person.The result of FAR flow-down requirements, not to mention the recent House language:QuoteFor any acquisition strategy developed for CCDev3, NASA is encouraged to consider the potential contributions of women-, minority- and veteran-owned firms.
Quote from: robertross on 09/20/2011 12:00 amSo, do we start a poll on which company will be the winner? I'm betting that Boeing & the CST-100 will be selected. Why? Experience in spaceflight.Why does it have to be one of the current CCDev award companies? With all due respect to you, this board was filled with everyone going on and on about "competition", etc and that the age of commercial was here and that no other alternatives were acceptable.So, now with the state of things, and how we have already seen the goal posts move are we prepared to say that "commercial" now exists of a government-awardee to one company out of the four that we know and nobody else should try? Is that "commercial" and does that fit with the points originally made and how this was sold. What about my points in my original points in this thread?
But I would be very surprised if there is only one commercial crew provider that is selected for CCDev-4. July 2014 is in FY2014 which means that CCDev-4 will be governed by a new authorization bill. So the funding for commercial crew development should be increased for those years. At least that's what Senator Nelson said when the 2010 NASA Authorization bill was passed. He said that they decided not to fully fund commercial crew in the beginning but that starting in FY 2014, the funding for commercial crew development would be increased.
Quote from: joek on 09/20/2011 12:50 amQuote from: Robotbeat on 09/20/2011 12:22 amSo, 7.5% is small business utilization? What the heck? I guess somebody called a Congress person.The result of FAR flow-down requirements, not to mention the recent House language:QuoteFor any acquisition strategy developed for CCDev3, NASA is encouraged to consider the potential contributions of women-, minority- and veteran-owned firms.SpaceX does not have to employ a chef, he can work for a small business.The cleaners can work for a woman owned firm.Security, window cleaners, gardeners, accountants and other support staff can also have their own firms.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 09/20/2011 12:22 amSo, 7.5% is small business utilization? What the heck? I guess somebody called a Congress person. I remember hearing about some subcontractors whining about how SpaceX wouldn't use their over-priced solution...(I think they advertised on this site, actually... hope this doesn't get me in trouble!)Again, total ignorance. It was you as I recall who was completely advocating and accepting of government totally funding "commercial" even though there were other ways to go about it that would really maximize the chance for true commercial.It is now ironic that you are complaining about 7.5% for small business in a FAR-based contract when typically the percentage is much higher.In addition there are categories to the "small business" allotment and that need to be satisfied and those typically include:Woman-owned businessVeteran-owned businessService-disabled Veteran-owned businessMinority-owned businessHUD-zone businessEtc
Quote from: joek on 09/19/2011 10:50 pmDown-select to a single provider expected for Phase 2. From 148508-DRAFT-001-005 (pg 50):Exactly. No real surprises here though anymore and saw this coming. I find it odd though that General Bolden and all can say they are sticking to a plan. The "plan" as I remember it was to:1. Have redundancy
Down-select to a single provider expected for Phase 2. From 148508-DRAFT-001-005 (pg 50):
"Ideally, we'd like to have multiple competitors who come down to at least two that we can use so that we always have an alternative should one falter or fail," NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said.
Couldn't "Past Performance" also be taken to mean several F9/Dragon flights, even in cargo configuration, having more weight than a lower number of Atlas/CST-100 flights because of the cargo/crew commonality?
.... At least that's what Senator Nelson said when the 2010 NASA Authorization bill was passed. He said that they decided not to fully fund commercial crew in the beginning but that starting in FY 2014, the funding for commercial crew development would be increased.
Down-select to a single provider expected for Phase 2. From 148508-DRAFT-001-005 (pg 50):edit: Multiple providers may still be in the future for Phase 2, budget available, per Robotbeat's post below.
Quote from: joek on 09/20/2011 12:19 amSource Selection and Evaluation CriteriaRelative Order of Importance of Evaluation Factors: Mission Suitability and Past Performance factors, when combined, are significantly more important than Price factor. The Mission Suitability factor is more important than Price; The Price factor is approximately equal to the Past Performance factor. If you want to stimulate commercial manned spaceflight then price is as important as mission suitability. In fact, price is part of mission suitability. Past performance is only important in so far as it is an indication of future performance. Small business utilisation is totally unimportant.