Quote from: JEF_300 on 06/13/2022 05:18 pmNone of it was sarcasm. Of course commercial industry has experience with space suits. What I said was that the commercial industry has no experience with suit ports specifically. Russia and China have suits with suit ports in orbit right now. NASA spent a decade plus working on the xEMU, which had a suit port, but as far as I know there was minimal commercial involvement in that program. So I don't believe any US company has experience in designing or building suit ports.One could rather argue there was too much commercial involment...Note: Collins worked on the backpack - therefore they should have experience with a suit port.
None of it was sarcasm. Of course commercial industry has experience with space suits. What I said was that the commercial industry has no experience with suit ports specifically. Russia and China have suits with suit ports in orbit right now. NASA spent a decade plus working on the xEMU, which had a suit port, but as far as I know there was minimal commercial involvement in that program. So I don't believe any US company has experience in designing or building suit ports.
The following offerors submitted proposals in response to the xEVAS RFP:Team Axiom Space (Axiom)- KBR, David Clark Company(pressure garment), Air-Lock(pressure garment), Arrow Science and Technology, A-P-T Research, Inc., Paragon Space Development Corporation, and Sophic SynergisticsTeam Collins Aerospace (Collins) -ILC Dover(legs); Oceaneering Space Systems; Blue Origin, LLC; MRI Technologies; Bastion Technologies; M&B Engineering; and Honeybee Robotics
Hamilton Sundstrand https://sam.gov/opp/33c62796d01c4448af94d2a9a9a5404e/view(slightly confused, I thought Team Collins won the second award)
https://opengovus.com/sam-entity/JC42EBJ5NFJ1Legal Name: HAMILTON SUNDSTRAND CORPORATIONDBA Name: COLLINS AEROSPACEwiki:Hamilton Sundstrand was an American globally active corporation that manufactured and supported aerospace and industrial products for worldwide markets. A subsidiary of United Technologies Corporation, it was headquartered in Windsor Locks, Connecticut. The company was formed from the merger of Hamilton Standard and Sundstrand Corporation in 1999. In 2012, Hamilton Sundstrand was merged with Goodrich Corporation to form UTC Aerospace Systems. In 2018, UTC Aerospace Systems and Rockwell Collins combined to form Collins Aerospace. [1]...On 26 November 2018, United Technologies announced the completion of its Rockwell Collins acquisition, after which it merged its newly acquired business with UTC Aerospace Systems to form Collins Aerospace. The new company reported $26 billion of combined sales in 2019 and is composed of 68,000 employees.[1][5] In 2020 United Technologies merged with Raytheon Company to form Raytheon Technologies.
- Axiom price seems to be lower, the wording is "lower than estimate"(AX) vs "slightly lower than estimate" (Collins)
Am I correctly reading that ONLY Axiom, Collins, and New Horizons Space submitted proposals to the RFP, and ONLY Axiom and Collins submitted proposals that had all volumes (were complete)? What happened to SpaceX ... ?
Am I correctly reading that ONLY Axiom, Collins, and New Horizons Space submitted proposals to the RFP, and ONLY Axiom and Collins submitted proposals that had all volumes (were complete)? What happened to SpaceX and all the other interested parties?
Or in other words, Axiom's price was 77% of IGCE, and Collins' price was 98% of IGCE. Now we only need to figure out how much the IGCE was.
Axiom’s commercialization approach includes assumptions with respect to revenue capture that could impact their ability to finance the xEVAS effort. Finally, Axiom’s proposed schedules for subCLIN 1A, ISS EVA Demonstration, and subCLIN 2A, Artemis EVA Demonstration, result in integration periods that elongate beyond the goals stated in the RFP, which increases the period of time until recurring services under xEVAS could begin.In light of these factors, I have a Moderate level of confidence that Axiom will successfully perform the required effort. Axiom’s proposed price was lower than the Independent Government Cost Estimate.
Collins’ commercialization approach demonstrates an understanding of NASA’s goal to become one of many customers while providing a low-risk business approach that does not rely on private investments. In light of these factors, I have a High level of confidence that Collins will successfully perform the required effort. Collins’ proposed price was slightly lower than the Independent Government Cost Estimate.
Axiom also has a proposed price that is lower than Collins’ proposed price.Axiom offers a slightly higher Mission Suitability, the lower Past Performance rating, and the lower price. Collins offers a slightly lower Mission Suitability, the higher Past Performance rating, and the higher price. The RFP included 52.216-27 (OCT 1995) SINGLE OR MULTIPLE AWARDS by reference and I find that NASA’s best interests are served by awarding multiple contracts in response to Solicitation Number 80JSC021R0006 (xEVAS). My analysis leads me to the conclusion that Axiom’s proposal is meritorious and advantageous to the Government, and that it aligns with the objectives as set forth in the RFP. Specifically, I conclude that the Moderate Past Performance and technical approach of Axiom’s proposal provide value for NASA at its offered price.Axiom’s price is 23% lower than the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE) and approximately 21% lower than Collins’ price. I concur with the Contracting Officer’s determination that Axiom’s proposed price is fair and reasonable.I therefore, determine that the Axiom proposal is a best value for the Government and I select them for an award under the Exploration Extravehicular Activity Services (xEVAS) Contract under Solicitation Number 80JSC021R0006.
My analysis leads me to the conclusion that Collins’ proposal is meritorious and advantageous to the Government, and that it aligns with the objectives as set forth in the RFP. Specifically, I conclude that the High Past Performance and technical approach of Collins’ proposal provide value for NASA at its offered price.Collins’ price was 2% lower than the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE) and approximately 27% higher than Axiom’s price. I concur with the Contracting Officer’s determination that Collins’ proposed price is fair and reasonable.I determine that the Collins proposal is a best value for the Government and I select them for an award under the Exploration Extravehicular Activity Services (xEVAS) Contract under Solicitation Number 80JSC021R0006.In summation, I select both Team Axiom Space and Team Collins Aerospace for awards under the Exploration Extravehicular Activity Services (xEVAS) Contract under Solicitation Number 80JSC021R0006.Vanessa WycheSource Selection Authority
NASA released the source selection statement for the xEVAS awards yesterday.Can be found in either of the award announcements:Axiom Space https://sam.gov/opp/2acfdeae77644a3285f1701a2392d5f3/viewHamilton Sundstrand https://sam.gov/opp/33c62796d01c4448af94d2a9a9a5404e/view(slightly confused, I thought Team Collins won the second award)Copy is also attached.
Maybe SpaceX decided that this NASA spacesuit was going to be so expensive that it'd be cheaper for SpaceX to go it alone, and probably quicker, too?
Quote from: Kiwi53 on 06/15/2022 10:30 pmMaybe SpaceX decided that this NASA spacesuit was going to be so expensive that it'd be cheaper for SpaceX to go it alone, and probably quicker, too?Maybe SpaceX decided to have separate EVA suits for orbital, Lunar & Martian environments for their internal use. Since it is likely SpaceX will need more EVA suits than the current NASA requirements. They concluded that actually having working in house EVA suits that isn't certified by NASA is better than navigating the NASA bureaucracy for a NASA "General Purpose" EVA suit development contract.
Some people will say that SpaceX intentionally withdraw their bid at the last moments simply because they want to make room for other companies & not "SpaceX is taking over the whole Artemis". Although I personally don't buy this argument
There's actually more detailed information on the prices:• "Axiom's price is 23% lower than the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE) and approximately 21% lower than Collins' price." (Page 15)• "Collins' price was 2% lower than the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE) and approximately 27% higher than Axiom's price." (Page 16)Or in other words, Axiom's price was 77% of IGCE, and Collins' price was 98% of IGCE. Now we only need to figure out how much the IGCE was.
Quote from: Zed_Noir on 06/16/2022 01:58 amQuote from: Kiwi53 on 06/15/2022 10:30 pmMaybe SpaceX decided that this NASA spacesuit was going to be so expensive that it'd be cheaper for SpaceX to go it alone, and probably quicker, too?Maybe SpaceX decided to have separate EVA suits for orbital, Lunar & Martian environments for their internal use. Since it is likely SpaceX will need more EVA suits than the current NASA requirements. They concluded that actually having working in house EVA suits that isn't certified by NASA is better than navigating the NASA bureaucracy for a NASA "General Purpose" EVA suit development contract.I don't understand why people think spaceX is gonna have its own lunar suits for Artimis. The Artimis astronauts will be using the lunar spacesuits that nasa is buying. SpaceX is providing the ride to the moon, not everything.SpaceX EVA suits are .... stripped down half suit things. There won't have any life support and will require tethers, very much limiting what can be done outside.
