Author Topic: NASA Releases Commercial Crew Draft RFP, Announces CCDEV2 Optional Milestones  (Read 64871 times)

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
Source Selection and Evaluation Criteria
Relative 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.
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4875
  • Liked: 2786
  • Likes Given: 1099
Don't forget this:
Quote
Notwithstanding 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.

Thanks!  Missed that one.  There's hope yet.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39276
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25253
  • Likes Given: 12117
Don't forget this:
Quote
Notwithstanding 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).
Right, but if NASA doesn't pay for Dragon to meet their specific human-rated specs (currently in the works, probably specific to ISS in some respects, could reflect more "wants" instead of "needs" from the astronaut corp, etc), there is no way SpaceX would do it to NASA's specs ("use this kind of bolt with this torque") for free, even though SpaceX does plan to develop Dragon into a crewed vehicle with their own money eventually. If NASA wants it their way, they'll have to pay.
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 joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4875
  • Liked: 2786
  • Likes Given: 1099
So, 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:
Quote
For any acquisition strategy developed for CCDev3, NASA is encouraged to consider the potential contributions of women-, minority- and veteran-owned firms.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
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).

Sigh.  Very bad response to my original post.  This is complete ignorance at worse and, at the very best, total and complete spin that fails to really address any of my oringinal points by simply ignoring them and pretending they were not really there out of convienence and moving the goal posts.  Very sad.
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
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!)

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 business
Veteran-owned business
Service-disabled Veteran-owned business
Minority-owned business
HUD-zone business
Etc

« Last Edit: 09/20/2011 04:29 am by OV-106 »
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
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.

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? 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline A_M_Swallow

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

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7699
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.

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? 

Perhaps you misunderstand, or I'm just seeing this form a more 'political' angle. I would certainly love to see the many players get a piece of the action, I really do. All of these companies bring something to the table, and each one can also fall into a hole and (though it may make them stronger in the end) will cost a lot of time and schedule. NASA has certainly won by leveraging the capabilities of several companies to make their position stronger; if more come to the table, NASA will no doubt seek to take advantage of that.

But NASA has to work with the tools available to them, and the biggest is money. They would have to invest (one would think) in a company (or companies) that can carry them forward with a commercial capability (not alternative), that can bring crew to the ISS (the main driver here, but not the only one) in a safe and timely manner. Congress is helping to tie NASA's hands, and that is evident in the language of the document(s).

I have respect for all the companies, but in the end, due to 'political weight', if I were to 'place a bet', my money would go to where the experience is in spaceflight, and that's Boeing.

If SpaceX is going to fly crew regardless, NASA has helped their cause to that end. Depending on which crew transports people to the Bigelow modules, they would not have advanced quite as far as the positions they are in now were it not for CCDev. So the players win here, but as you well have pointed out previously, commercial needs their own business case to close, and right now with the ISS as the 'only game in town', that's a stark reality.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17287
  • Liked: 7125
  • Likes Given: 3066
According to the document, the down select would only occur under CCDev-4 in July 2014. By that time cargo Dragon should be a proven system. IMO, the odds are in favour of SpaceX if there is only one provider.

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.
« Last Edit: 09/20/2011 03:47 am by yg1968 »

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4875
  • Liked: 2786
  • Likes Given: 1099
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.

I hope so, but I'm having trouble figuring out where the money is going to come from... either something else in NASA's budget gives, or there's an increase in NASA's projected budget; doesn't appear to be a lot of room in either case.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
So, 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:
Quote
For 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.

Wrong.  FAR requires that the small businesses are given "meaningful work" directly related to the contract award in order to avoid such practices.
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10292
  • Liked: 702
  • Likes Given: 727
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!)

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 business
Veteran-owned business
Service-disabled Veteran-owned business
Minority-owned business
HUD-zone business
Etc



SpaceX qualifies as a small business, and it may be located in a HUD Zone in Hawthorne. Heck, ORB was a small business not that long ago, and may still be one.

Offline manboy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2086
  • Texas, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 134
  • Likes Given: 544
Down-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

Here's a quote if you ever need something to back up those memories

Quote from: Private companies hold the key to space travel's future (CNN) - 2011-06-30
"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.

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-30/us/future.of.space.travel_1_international-space-station-spaceship-shuttle-program-ends?_s=PM:US
"Cheese has been sent into space before. But the same cheese has never been sent into space twice." - StephenB

Offline peter-b

  • Dr. Peter Brett
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 651
  • Oxford, UK
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 74
I think you'll find that the plan was scuppered when Congress didn't give NASA the money that was asked for and required to implement said plan. No bucks, no Buck Rogers.

I was thinking about this while trying to get to sleep last night, and I came to pretty much the same conclusion as other posters here: Boeing + SpaceX phase 1, downselect to Boeing phase 2. The weighting on "Past Performance" confirms it for me. Liberty hasn't got a gnat's chance in a Bunsen burner flame of getting funded -- given the limited budget and time available, NASA will want to fund spacecraft development, not launcher development -- and both Blue Origin and SNC seem much further from flight than the other two. Who else is there who could plausibly be awarded a contract?

The 7% socioeconomic subcontracting requirement does seem low (I seem to remember ~20% or higher from other FAR contracts). Do you think this is based on experience with COTS and the earlier CCDev rounds?
Research Scientist (Sensors), Sharp Laboratories of Europe, UK

Offline docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6336
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 4211
  • Likes Given: 2
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?
« Last Edit: 09/20/2011 08:32 am by docmordrid »
DM

Offline manboy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2086
  • Texas, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 134
  • Likes Given: 544
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?
I'm hoping, because SpaceX seems to have much lower costs than Boeing.
"Cheese has been sent into space before. But the same cheese has never been sent into space twice." - StephenB

Offline Hauerg

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 901
  • Berndorf, Austria
  • Liked: 520
  • Likes Given: 2574
....
 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.
And the cancellation of SLS will provide a LOT of money.

Offline MP99

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.

If the down-select is at risk of going to one provider, it must make it harder for competitors to put their own skin in the game if they will be reliant on NASA business to recoup their investment.

cheers, Martin

Offline MP99

Source Selection and Evaluation Criteria
Relative 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.

How much is NASA overhead likely to affect the price?

Could the winning provider gain a NASA contract, but be undercut (eg for Bigelow) by one of the dropped competitors?

cheers, Martin

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0