NASA itself stated that price would be given double value over all the other factors.
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.
M.2 MISSION SUITABILITY FACTOR...Mission Suitability Subfactors (Scored Elements)Weight (Points)Subfactor 1: Technical, Crew Safety and Mission Assurance525Subfactor 2: Management Approach400Subfactor 3: Small Business Utilization75Total1000
M.4 PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR... The Past Performance evaluation is an assessment of the Government’s confidence in the Offeror’s ability to perform the solicitation requirements by assigning a confidence rating to the overall Past Performance factor.
QuoteM.4 PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR... The Past Performance evaluation is an assessment of the Government’s confidence in the Offeror’s ability to perform the solicitation requirements by assigning a confidence rating to the overall Past Performance factor.
past performance skews the results against any new participants in the industry... So what was the point of a competition?
Unfortunately past performance skews the results against any new participants in the industry... So what was the point of a competition? Assign a contract and get on with it...
In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.
Quote from: Rocket Science on 10/11/2014 11:44 pmUnfortunately past performance skews the results against any new participants in the industry... So what was the point of a competition? Assign a contract and get on with it...In cases with no history the evaluation must be neutral; per FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv); incorporated by reference in the CCtCap RFP:Quote In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.
Quote from: Rocket Science on 10/11/2014 11:44 pmpast performance skews the results against any new participants in the industry... So what was the point of a competition? The apparent point of the competition was to apply some pricing pressure on the established market participants. Personally I assume that had SNC not been competing, Boeing's offer would have been different and its price would have been even higher than what they bid. So maybe the competition worked just as intended?
How does that work? Does a favorable prior performer get positive points, an unfavorable prior performer negative points, and a new offeror zero points? If another metric, how is it set up?
Exactly. The outcome basically just reinforced my cynical suspicion all along that this "commercial" program was little more than a charade that would inevitably lead to more or less what we could have had by awarding a cost plus contract to the entrenched establishment without wasting all this time pretending to want to spur innovation.
Quote from: Rocket Science on 10/11/2014 11:44 pmUnfortunately past performance skews the results against any new participants in the industry... So what was the point of a competition? Assign a contract and get on with it...Exactly. The outcome basically just reinforced my cynical suspicion all along that this "commercial" program was little more than a charade that would inevitably lead to more or less what we could have had by awarding a cost plus contract to the entrenched establishment without wasting all this time pretending to want to spur innovation.
However, asserting that Price is approximately twice the weight of the Mission Suitability total score is incorrect.
Mind you that does not say that price is primary - there is no primary - only that price is 2x more important than any other "single" factor.
I'd of given Boeing 8B five years ago and would be flying today...
Quote from: Rocket Science on 10/12/2014 12:31 amI'd of given Boeing 8B five years ago and would be flying today...No they wouldn't. Atlas still isn't human rated yet, in spite of the relatively easy technical requirements to do so. Without SNC and SpaceX in the mix Boeing and ULA would have had absolutely no pressure to get it done. It would have been business as usual, drawn out as long as possible and get as much taxpayer money for it as possible.
Quote from: Rocket Science on 10/11/2014 11:44 pmUnfortunately past performance skews the results against any new participants in the industry... So what was the point of a competition? Assign a contract and get on with it...SNC could and did bring in experienced subcontractors, that helps getting around this. Past performance is always a consideration.
I agree with you Jim but should it not include "on time and within budget"?
Quote from: Rocket Science on 10/12/2014 12:36 pmI agree with you Jim but should it not include "on time and within budget"?I think you mean "should include"And SNC past experience for other projects always came in on time and within budget?