GAME ON indeed - they basically played the 'national interest' card. Tough one to counter.
Quote from: docmordrid on 10/09/2014 10:23 pmGAME ON indeed - they basically played the 'national interest' card. Tough one to counter.There are two types of cards: "urgent and compelling circumstances"; or in the "best interests of the United States". The latter is a weaker card, the one which NASA played, the one most difficult to defend, and the one most often overturned--it is by no means synonymous with national security or national defense.
Three years ahead the CC spacecraft are unlikely to have a planed launch date but they may have a planned launch quarter year and possibly even a launch month.
I would think NASA knows when the window would open for the first Commercial Crew flight based on the current crew rotation schedule, and would want both of their providers to be shooting for that earliest possible need date.
It's a smart move. Why stop both SpaceX and Boeing from progressing when only one of them could potentially be relieved of its' current contract. There would be some economic fallout if one of the contracts were ultimately reversed but in the grand scheme of the entirety of the program, it's a risk well worth taking.
Quote from: rcoppola on 10/10/2014 11:21 pmIt's a smart move. Why stop both SpaceX and Boeing from progressing when only one of them could potentially be relieved of its' current contract. There would be some economic fallout if one of the contracts were ultimately reversed but in the grand scheme of the entirety of the program, it's a risk well worth taking.Because the rules prohibit NASA from playing that game. If NASA does attempt to play that game (which would be stupid), they will be handed their head on a platter.
Quote from: joek on 10/10/2014 11:41 pmQuote from: rcoppola on 10/10/2014 11:21 pmIt's a smart move. Why stop both SpaceX and Boeing from progressing when only one of them could potentially be relieved of its' current contract. There would be some economic fallout if one of the contracts were ultimately reversed but in the grand scheme of the entirety of the program, it's a risk well worth taking.Because the rules prohibit NASA from playing that game. If NASA does attempt to play that game (which would be stupid), they will be handed their head on a platter.Pardon, I honestly don't understand. What rules? What game? I'm just saying that regardless how the protest turns out, with allowing continued work, at least one system will remain on schedule. I'm not saying NASA's reasoning for full steam ahead is completely sound but it keeps the train a hummin and at least half that train is guaranteed to make into station. (pun intended)
I expect the return to work risk by NASA is minimal. If the GAO overturns the contract, then in worst case NASA will be out only 1 milestone payment.
Quote from: Roy_H on 10/10/2014 04:50 pmI expect the return to work risk by NASA is minimal. If the GAO overturns the contract, then in worst case NASA will be out only 1 milestone payment.Not correct. I know there is money at authority to proceed and at least one partner has 3 milestones by the end of the year.
Why do some posters think SpaceX is at risk? The protest is clearly based on the financial argument of saving taxpayers money and that will only happen if SNC replaces Boeing.
Are the milestones and payments available -- open to the public?
Rather, it is based on the solicitation specifying that the price factor would be the most important consideration.
M.1 SOURCE SELECTION AND EVALUATION FACTORS—GENERAL...(e) Relative Order of Importance of Evaluation Factors: Mission Suitability and Past Performance, when combined, are approximately equal to Price. The Price factor is more important than Mission Suitability, which is more important than Past Performance.
Quote from: Nindalf on 10/11/2014 03:25 pmRather, it is based on the solicitation specifying that the price factor would be the most important consideration.Not quite, and that meme needs to be squashed:Quote from: CCtCap RFP NNK14467515R M.1 SOURCE SELECTION AND EVALUATION FACTORS—GENERAL...(e) Relative Order of Importance of Evaluation Factors: Mission Suitability and Past Performance, when combined, are approximately equal to Price. The Price factor is more important than Mission Suitability, which is more important than Past Performance.NB: Mission Suitability and Past Performance, when combined, are approximately equal to Price.edit: To be clear, Price is the most important factor (or tie-breaker) only if you assume that the evaluation of Mission Suitability and Past Performance are also equal. I would not make such an assumption.
Quote from: Hauerg on 10/11/2014 07:59 pmPrice is not the sole, primary, or overriding evaluation factor--as some seem to claim--but one of several evaluation factors. Given that SNC (presumably) had a lower evaluated price than, e.g., Boeing, then it is likely SNC lost based on other evaluation factors: Mission suitability and Past Performance. Hope that makes sense.