NASA Releases COTS Final Report: Commercial Orbital Transportation Services, A N

[yg1968]

Well, I haven't worked with NASA but it would be quite unusual if NASA and the contractor could not _talk_ about what they are doing/expecting when they see the need to.
Yes, I've seen cases like that with contractors but that's usually relationships where you do one contract and then you part ways...

There was ways around it. Brent Jett mentionned that MOUs were used under CCDev2 to get around that issue.

[pippin]

That's what I meant. If you have a somewhat decent relationship and you want to do something then you'll find a way...

[ChrisWilson68]

It seemed to me that something where a NASA monitor could answer questions and comment on the contractor's approach (when asked) might avoid situations where the contractor thought their approach was compliant but was floored.

I just called it SAA+ as being something more than SAA but rather less than the full FAR25 process.

My impression was that SAAs already work like that.  Just look at the milestones for COTS and CRS -- many of them are review milestones -- PDRs, CDRs, safety reviews, etc.  Those reviews are events where the contractor gives numerous presentation to dozens of NASA engineers about the details of their plans, and the NASA people can comment and ask any questions they want.  The contractor has to answer all questions to the satisfaction of the NASA folks before the review is considered complete and before they get paid for it.

And in addition to the formal review events, I got the impression that the contractors and the NASA people continue talking.

I think a big part of the reason these SAA programs have been so successful is precisely because the contractors get so much advice from NASA people.

[jongoff]

What I've never understood is that it always seems to be set up as either SAA or cost plus (or one of its variants).

It isn't.  NASA uses a lot of firm fixed price contracts, for spacecraft, launch services, processing supports, etc.

CRS is firm fixed price. 

I don't understand why everybody thinks NASA uses cost plus and why SAA's are the only answer.

Admittedly I used to be in the camp that didn't know you could have FAR firm fixed price contracts. Jim and GO4TLI are right that there's nothing inherent in FAR that requires cost-plus.

On a related note, I've been seeing some rumors flying around the internet that Senator Shelby is inserting additional cost-accounting requirements in with the funding bill for Commercial Crew. The rumors were implying a move to cost-plus, but were sufficiently vague that I'm not confident in that interpretation.

Anyone here that understand gov't contracting (Jim, Go4TLI, others) have any insights into what Senator Shelby added to the bill, and whether it makes any sense or is at all justified?

~Jon

[QuantumG]

I'm pretty sure they want SpaceX employees to punch clocks.. it's another way to slow them down so Boeing can "compete".

[yg1968]

I'm pretty sure they want SpaceX employees to punch clocks.. it's another way to slow them down so Boeing can "compete".

Shelby is doing this to sabotage commercial crew like he always does.

[john smith 19]

My impression was that SAAs already work like that.  Just look at the milestones for COTS and CRS -- many of them are review milestones -- PDRs, CDRs, safety reviews, etc.  Those reviews are events where the contractor gives numerous presentation to dozens of NASA engineers about the details of their plans, and the NASA people can comment and ask any questions they want.  The contractor has to answer all questions to the satisfaction of the NASA folks before the review is considered complete and before they get paid for it.

And in addition to the formal review events, I got the impression that the contractors and the NASA people continue talking.

I think a big part of the reason these SAA programs have been so successful is precisely because the contractors get so much advice from NASA people.

It was more I got the feeling that you could not ask those questions during construction, when in principal any changes would be much cheaper to implement, rather than after the fact in review. 

[peter-b]

As I understand it, the design reviews happen *before* construction. It makes sure that the thing that's going to be constructed meets requirements. Look at the COTS milestones chart for example.

[john smith 19]

Sorry to interrupt but has anyone seen this?

http://www.space-access.org/updates/sasalert060414.html

Shelby is asking for full FAR25 compliant cost reporting, despite CRS being a firm fixed price contract.

I'm not sure if it's too late to do anything about this or if I'm just out of the loop, but it is COTS related.

[yg1968]

Sorry to interrupt but has anyone seen this?

http://www.space-access.org/updates/sasalert060414.html

Shelby is asking for full FAR25 compliant cost reporting, despite CRS being a firm fixed price contract.

I'm not sure if it's too late to do anything about this or if I'm just out of the loop, but it is COTS related.

Yes, I mentionned it in this thread:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34827.msg1209848#msg1209848

But you are right, it targets the next rounds of commercial crew (CCtCap) and commercial cargo (CRS2).

[vulture4]

Sorry to interrupt but has anyone seen this?

http://www.space-access.org/updates/sasalert060414.html

Shelby is asking for full FAR25 compliant cost reporting, despite CRS being a firm fixed price contract.

I'm not sure if it's too late to do anything about this or if I'm just out of the loop, but it is COTS related.

Yes, I mentionned it in this thread:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34827.msg1209848#msg1209848

But it you are right, it targets the next rounds of commercial crew (CCtCap) and commercial cargo (CRS2).

I think it's reasonably safe to say that Shelby is just using this as a way to attack Commercial Crew by saddling it with higher costs. I've won a few small NASA contracts and the stupidity of it is that today in most cases NASA wants invoices and cost data as though the contract were cost plus even though in reality the total you can ask for is firmly capped. An woe betide the project that doesn't spend all the money on schedule, it makes the contracting officer look bad. But the FAR says that under firm fixed price you get your price and you deliver your product, and your costs are irrelevant.

[john smith 19]

I think it's reasonably safe to say that Shelby is just using this as a way to attack Commercial Crew by saddling it with higher costs. I've won a few small NASA contracts and the stupidity of it is that today in most cases NASA wants invoices and cost data as though the contract were cost plus even though in reality the total you can ask for is firmly capped. An woe betide the project that doesn't spend all the money on schedule, it makes the contracting officer look bad. But the FAR says that under firm fixed price you get your price and you deliver your product, and your costs are irrelevant.

What I find surprising is that (AFAIK) CRS is firm fixed price. No cost plus. so he's wanting to add all that reporting retroactively 

[mlindner]

I think it's reasonably safe to say that Shelby is just using this as a way to attack Commercial Crew by saddling it with higher costs. I've won a few small NASA contracts and the stupidity of it is that today in most cases NASA wants invoices and cost data as though the contract were cost plus even though in reality the total you can ask for is firmly capped. An woe betide the project that doesn't spend all the money on schedule, it makes the contracting officer look bad. But the FAR says that under firm fixed price you get your price and you deliver your product, and your costs are irrelevant.

What I find surprising is that (AFAIK) CRS is firm fixed price. No cost plus. so he's wanting to add all that reporting retroactively 

If that's actually the case (which would be surprising to me) it would probably violate the existing contract if the government tried it. They'd be breaking the law and promptly get a lawsuit.

[Jim]

I've won a few small NASA contracts and the stupidity of it is that today in most cases NASA wants invoices and cost data as though the contract were cost plus even though in reality the total you can ask for is firmly capped.

How can you surmise from a "few" contracts that you have done and apply it to "in most case"?   You have insufficient data to base your claim on, especially on the larger contracts.

[beancounter]

I've won a few small NASA contracts and the stupidity of it is that today in most cases NASA wants invoices and cost data as though the contract were cost plus even though in reality the total you can ask for is firmly capped.

How can you surmise from a "few" contracts that you have done and apply it to "in most case"?   You have insufficient data to base your claim on, especially on the larger contracts.

Apparently Vulture4 has done some.  Fair question, have you or more generally, anyone else on the blog who can add further information?
Thanks

[JohnFornaro]

I've won a few small NASA contracts and the stupidity of it is that today in most cases NASA wants invoices and cost data as though the contract were cost plus even though in reality the total you can ask for is firmly capped.

How can you surmise from a "few" contracts that you have done and apply it to "in most case"?   You have insufficient data to base your claim on, especially on the larger contracts.

Apparently Vulture4 has done some.  Fair question, have you or more generally, anyone else on the blog who can add further information?
Thanks

He probably meant "in most cases" pertaining to the "few small contracts" that he had been awarded.  At least, if English grammar is assumed to be appropriate tool for charitably parsing the meaning of his statement.

However, he did say "today in most cases", which would imply knowledge about other cases than his own.

A clarification from Vulture4 would be helpful.

[JohnFornaro]

What I've never understood is that it always seems to be set up as either SAA or cost plus (or one of its variants).

It isn't.  NASA uses a lot of firm fixed price contracts, for spacecraft, launch services, processing supports, etc.

CRS is firm fixed price. 

I don't understand why everybody thinks NASA uses cost plus and why SAA's are the only answer.

I tend to agree.  It is frustrating to see the ignorance repeated time and time again around here. Various contracting mechanisms are appropriate and depend on the situation at hand.  Ultimately it is the customers choice on the type of contract they want depending on how much influence they want and how likely the scope of the contract is expected to be tweaked, etc.

These types of contract mechanisms are not unique to the government and are used throughout industry as well.

Certainly it's generally true about the "types of contract mechanisms" not being particularly unique in principle.  However, it's also generally true that when the government gets hold of a non-unique contracting mechanism, the cost of the widgets contracted for tends to skyrocket as reams of bureatcratic requirements become placed before the satisfaction of the contract terms.

And there's the continuing deliberate characterization of "ignorance" to those people who see the contractural complexities as unecessary. 

For example, the whole of FAR applies to SLS.  As it turned out, the whole of FAR applied to a $150K NASA contract that I applied for some few years ago.  The several people in this thread who have anecdotal contractural stories about their NASA experiences may be ignorant about all of the intricacies of FAR, but who isn't?

The common underlying thread to the anecdotes is the complexity issue; contractural complexity without cause.  Call it CCC.  Sheesh.

The SpaceAccess alert cannot be said to be spin, by my reading:

Sorry to interrupt but has anyone seen this?

http://www.space-access.org/updates/sasalert060414.html

Shelby is asking for full FAR25 compliant cost reporting, despite CRS being a firm fixed price contract. ...

Yes, I mentionned it in this thread:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34827.msg1209848#msg1209848

...

I think it's reasonably safe to say that Shelby is just using this as a way to attack Commercial Crew by saddling it with higher costs.

Senator Shelby's assertion that this is about ensuring "that taxpayers get the best value for their dollar" is patent nonsense - by NASA's own study, one Commercial Cargo launcher development came in at a tenth or less NASA's likely in-house costs, and Commercial Crew looks set to follow in saving massive amounts of taxpayer dollars...

There is no incompetence involved in these new developments.  This is an intelligently designed effort to maintain the status quo, where the United States government will have no assured ability to launch its own astros, and now, maybe even cargo, to as mundane a location as low Earth orbit.

[Sean Lynch]

There is no incompetence involved in these new developments.  This is an intelligently designed effort to maintain the status quo, where the United States government will have no assured ability to launch its own astros, and now, maybe even cargo, to as mundane a location as low Earth orbit.

The impact to commercial providers to NASA, from page 117-119 is pretty clear, from FAR contracts to requirements to conduct testing at NASA facilities potentially operated by competitors.

The Committee encourages
NASA to develop plans to fully utilize NASA-owned rocket testing
infrastructure for commercially developed launch vehicles to ensure
that these vehicles are not only tested in the same manner as Government-
developed launch vehicles but at the same facilities to ensure
consistency in testing across all potential vehicles.

Perhaps I'm wrong but with the new requirements placed on NASA, every aspect of a company's private proprietary information could be laid bare for the competition to feast upon under these rules.
To protect competition, we don't require disclosure and testing of proprietary fracking fluid formulation in EPA labs.
I don't know what to say.

[Jim]

Perhaps I'm wrong but with the new requirements placed on NASA, every aspect of a company's private proprietary information could be laid bare for the competition to feast upon under these rules.

no, it still would be protected as it is always

[Sean Lynch]

Perhaps I'm wrong but with the new requirements placed on NASA, every aspect of a company's private proprietary information could be laid bare for the competition to feast upon under these rules.

no, it still would be protected as it is always

Putting all the compartmentalized data in one basket, briefcase or thumbdrive is a pretty tempting nest egg some might reach for.  There is precedent in the industry.