Author Topic: NASA Releases Draft RFP for CCtCap (i.e., Phase 2 of Certification)  (Read 78331 times)

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9820
  • Liked: 1500
  • Likes Given: 898
NASA Releases Draft RFP for CCtCap (i.e., Phase 2 of Certification):
http://prod.nais.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/eps/sol.cgi?acqid=157250#Draft%20Documen
http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/page.cfm?ID=29

The first document contains a good summary.
« Last Edit: 09/23/2014 02:22 pm by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9820
  • Liked: 1500
  • Likes Given: 898
Some paragraphs of interest from the first document:

Quote from: page 8 of the first PDF document
Government Property

The Government will make available a total of 4 NASA Docking System Block 1 units on a no charge-for-use basis for performance of work under this contract. If there are multiple contract awards, the available units will be equitably distributed, if necessary. The first flight unit will be available February, 2016.

Based on this, there will no test flight to the ISS prior to February 2016.

Quote from: page 9 of the first PDF document
Commercial Passenger(s) and Cargo Requests

Clause H.23 of the dRFP enables the Contractor to propose to manifest Commercial Passengers, cargo or payloads on PCMs for contract price adjustment(s) or other contract consideration. The timing and NASA approval process are provided. (See RFP Clause H.23)

Spaceflight participants could be allowed on post-certification missions.
« Last Edit: 07/20/2013 12:24 am by yg1968 »

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3128
  • Liked: 874
  • Likes Given: 444
Thanks yg1968!  Attached zip contains all of the files (except xls) as pdf.  (The package is a bunch of word/excel attachments embedded in a pdf.  Go figure.)

The primary info is in "NNK14467515R - CCtCap - dRFP.pdf".
edit: oops, sorry wrong zip; corrected.
« Last Edit: 07/19/2013 11:14 pm by joek »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9820
  • Liked: 1500
  • Likes Given: 898
Also of interest from the first document:

Quote from: page 4 of the first PDF document
The Firm Fixed Price (FFP) FAR Part 15 contract will include four (4) separate Contract Line Items (CLINs):

- CLIN 001 – DDTE/Certification (core contract): The purpose of this CLIN is to complete DDTE activities and certify the Contractor’s CTS to NASA’s requirements for safely transporting NASA crew to the ISS.

- CLIN 002 – Post Certification Missions [PCMs] (IDIQ): The purpose of this CLIN is to perform PCMs to the ISS.

- CLIN 003 – Special Studies (IDIQ): The purpose of this CLIN is to perform special studies, tests and analyses, as needed by NASA to perform risk reduction-type activities. These tasks do not include any work necessary to accomplish the requirements under CLIN 001, CLIN 002, and CLIN 004.

- CLIN 004 – Cargo in Excess of Requirements (if proposed): The purpose of this CLIN is to allow the Contractor to provide cargo in addition to the minimum requirements in CCT-REQ-1130 to meet NASA needs. These may be ordered in conjunction with Post Certification Missions, CLIN 002 or flight tests in CLIN 001. This is not intended to be a replacement for existing cargo services, but permits NASA to establish an understanding of the full capacity of proposed CTSs and associated pricing.

CLIN 004 could allow cargo test flights.
« Last Edit: 07/20/2013 12:25 am by yg1968 »

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3128
  • Liked: 874
  • Likes Given: 444
Synopsis of additional key points from the draft RFP:

B.3 Design, Development, Test and Evaluation (DDTE)/Certification (Core Contract) (CLIN 001)
All certification work is FFP with milestone-based payments (offeror provided, per attachment J-03) with the exception of "special studies" (CLIN 003)
Quote
NASA Certification under CLIN 001 is complete when the Contractor’s CTS has met NASA’s requirements for safely transporting crew to ISS.  CLINS 001A through 001G are mandatory milestones that represent completion of required work necessary to achieve NASA Certification.  The Government specified acceptance criteria for each Certification Milestone Review is provided in Appendix A, Milestone Acceptance Criteria and Payment Schedule to Attachment J-03, Contract Performance Work Statement (PWS).

B.4 POST CERTIFICATION MISSIONS (IDIQ) (CLIN 002)
NASA is asking for FFP for post-certification flights (pricing per mission, not per seat).
Quote
In accordance with Attachment J-03, Contract Performance Work Statement, the task ordering procedures and other terms and conditions in the contract, the Contractor shall be required to perform Post Certification Missions task orders written by the Contracting Officer.  The Contractor shall use the Mission pricing rates shown in Table B.4.1, Post Certification Mission Prices.  These mission prices are based on the CY (calendar year) the launch is scheduled to occur.  The minimum quantity of missions guaranteed to be ordered under this contract is two (2).  Missions ordered for the minimum guaranteed quantity will not be authorized prior to accomplishment of the criteria shown in clause H.19, Post Certification Mission Payments, Milestones and ATP Criteria, paragraph (a). 

If the Government orders a second mission within 12 months of a previously ordered mission, the contractor shall use the Mission pricing rates shown in right hand column of Table B.4.1, Post Certification Mission Prices. 

The maximum potential number of Post Certification Missions which may be ordered under this contract is six (6).  If multiple awards are made, the maximum number of all PCMs awarded under all contracts when combined will not exceed six.  The maximum potential total value of all Post Certification Mission Task Orders which may be ordered under this contract is six (6) missions.   

B.6 CARGO CAPABILITY IN EXCESS OF REQUIREMENTS (IDIQ) (CLIN 004)
NASA is also asking for up- and down-cargo rates for post-certification flights.
Quote
When ordered by the Contracting Officer, the Contractor shall provide cargo in excess of requirements in accordance with Attachment J-03, Contract Performance Work Statement, and other terms and conditions in the contract.  Cargo in excess of requirements may be ordered in conjunction with Post Certification Missions, CLIN 002 or applicable segments such as test flights in CLIN 001.  Cargo authorized under this clause for CLIN 001 will result in an increase to the CLIN 001 FFP in this contract.  Cargo authorized under this clause for CLIN 002 will be reflected in the CLIN 002 task order FFP.

Interestingly, the tables for those CLIN's show CY2015-2020 (maybe a bit optimistic?).

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9820
  • Liked: 1500
  • Likes Given: 898
Other paragraphs of interest from the more detailed (attached) 159 page document:

Quote from: page 8 of the PDF
The maximum potential number of Post Certification Missions which may be ordered under this contract is six (6). If multiple awards are made, the maximum number of all PCMs awarded under all contracts when combined will not exceed six. The maximum potential total value of all Post Certification Mission Task Orders which may be ordered under this contract is six (6) missions.

Quote from: page 37 of the PDF
H.8 POST CERTIFICATION MISSION TASK ORDERING PROCEDURES (APPLICABLE TO CLIN 002 and CLIN 004)
(a) Requirements for Competition.
In the event that two (2) or more commercial crew transportation contracts are awarded, a fair opportunity to be considered for task orders issued under this contract based upon the specific task order requirements will be provided, unless the Contracting Officer determines that one of the following apply:
(1) The Agency need is of such urgency that competing the requirements among Contractors would result in unacceptable delays;
(2) Only one Contractor is capable of providing the service at the level of quality required because the service ordered is unique or highly specialized;
(3) The order must be issued on a sole-source basis in the interest of economy and efficiency because it is a logical follow-on to an order issued under the contract, provided that all Contractors were given a fair opportunity to be considered for the original order; or
(4) It is necessary to place an order to satisfy the minimum guarantee per clause B.4, Post Certification Missions (IDIQ) (CLIN 002).
« Last Edit: 07/20/2013 12:30 am by yg1968 »

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3128
  • Liked: 874
  • Likes Given: 444
My read of this is that it is about as good as it gets...

1. Certification work will be firm fixed price (FFP) with milestone payments.  While high level milestones have been defined by NASA (contract line items or CLIN 001), the details are left to the offeror.  Very similar to SAA's for CCDev and CCiCap.*

2. The risk of providers low-balling entry and hiking prices later is mitigated by NASA requiring post-certification FFP mission pricing.  NASA has required the providers to commit to FFP for follow-on (post-certification) missions.

3. If there is significant synergy/savings from combined cargo and crew, then providers may leverage those and get some points (especially given that these will be post-CRS missions).


* However, this will work only if NASA's requirements are also reasonably well firm and fixed at the time of contract award.  That may be a bone of contention.  Anyone want to venture a guess as to how firm NASA's requirements are at this point?

Offline manboy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2082
  • Texas, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 127
  • Likes Given: 539
Thanks yg1968!  Attached zip contains all of the files (except xls) as pdf.  (The package is a bunch of word/excel attachments embedded in a pdf.  Go figure.)

The primary info is in "NNK14467515R - CCtCap - dRFP.pdf".
edit: oops, sorry wrong zip; corrected.
$14 million for a docking mechanism seems incredibly high, especially when you think about how Russia throws away eight per year. I wonder how much those costs can be reduced if the providers choose to manufacture their own.


Quote from: 157250-DRAFT-001-001
Government Property
The Government will make available a total of 4 NASA Docking System Block 1 units on a no charge-for-use basis for performance of work under this contract. If there are multiple contract awards, the available units will be equitably distributed, if necessary. The first flight unit will be available February, 2016. Within the proposal, the Offeror shall describe their approach to enable docking with the ISS. The options include the following:
      1. Government will provide NDS flight hardware units (limited to the noted four) as
Government Furnished Property.
       2. Government will provide NDS Engineering as Government Furnished Data for Industry
to build NDS. The preliminary build-to-print package available in November, 2014 and final build-to-print package available by June, 2016.”
        3. Contractor designs and builds unique docking system that is compatible with SSP 50808
requirements. The Government furnishes no hardware, data, or services.
(See dRFP Clauses G.4, G.5, G.6, G.7, H.14; Provisions L.20-1-TA01, and M.2-TA01)
« Last Edit: 07/20/2013 01:31 am by manboy »
"Cheese has been sent into space before. But the same cheese has never been sent into space twice." - StephenB

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9820
  • Liked: 1500
  • Likes Given: 898
My read of this is that it is about as good as it gets...

1. Certification work will be firm fixed price (FFP) with milestone payments.  While high level milestones have been defined by NASA (contract line items or CLIN 001), the details are left to the offeror.  Very similar to SAA's for CCDev and CCiCap.*

2. The risk of providers low-balling entry and hiking prices later is mitigated by NASA requiring post-certification FFP mission pricing.  NASA has required the providers to commit to FFP for follow-on (post-certification) missions.

3. If there is significant synergy/savings from combined cargo and crew, then providers may leverage those and get some points (especially given that these will be post-CRS missions).


* However, this will work only if NASA's requirements are also reasonably well firm and fixed at the time of contract award.  That may be a bone of contention.  Anyone want to venture a guess as to how firm NASA's requirements are at this point?

It was explained a few months ago that the reason for adding post-certification flights is because NASA intends to have two CCtCap companies. Given that a downselect to one will likely be done for the crew transportation services contract, the post-certification flights are a way to provide incentives to the second place company (sort of a consolation prize). They may end up being offered to both companies but they are really there in order to maintain competition as long as possible by providing incentives to the runner-up.

I think that the cargo flights are just there either as potential unmanned test flights or they can also be offered as part of a post certification flight. Their objective is either to provide a useful unmanned test flight or to provide incentives to the second place company.
« Last Edit: 07/20/2013 01:35 am by yg1968 »

Offline JBF

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1416
  • Liked: 429
  • Likes Given: 793
14-16m for one side of a docking collar.  Is it me or does that seem really high priced?
"In principle, rocket engines are simple, but that’s the last place rocket engines are ever simple." Jeff Bezos

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3128
  • Liked: 874
  • Likes Given: 444
It was explained a few months ago that the reason for adding post-certification flights is because NASA intends to have two CCtCap companies. Given that a downselect to one will likely be done for the crew transportation services contract, the post-certification flights are a way to provide incentives to the second place company (sort of a consolation prize). They may end up being offered to both companies but they are really there in order to maintain competition as long as possible by providing incentives to the runner-up.
How so? This CCtCap suggests otherwise.
« Last Edit: 07/20/2013 02:22 am by joek »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9820
  • Liked: 1500
  • Likes Given: 898
It was explained a few months ago that the reason for adding post-certification flights is because NASA intends to have two CCtCap companies. Given that a downselect to one will likely be done for the crew transportation services contract, the post-certification flights are a way to provide incentives to the second place company (sort of a consolation prize). They may end up being offered to both companies but they are really there in order to maintain competition as long as possible by providing incentives to the runner-up.
How so? This CCtCap suggests otherwise.

I am not sure that I understand your question. NASA has said that it wants to maintain competition as long as possible and believes that adding post-certification flights during CCtCap is a way to achieve this.

On the reasoning for post-certification flights, here is how NASA explained it last January:

Quote
The anticipated contract for Phase 2 Certification may include at least one post-certification ISS mission.  Question 3 (Section 3.3 below) discusses this topic in greater detail.

NASA has several strategic objectives in developing the Phase 2 Certification procurement strategy.  NASA desires to maximize competition and to find ways to incentivize industry’s financial contribution in the CTS development with a goal of achieving a certified CTS no later than 2017.  NASA also desires to minimize cost, both for this contract and throughout the operational lifetime of the CTS.

http://prod.nais.nasa.gov/eps/eps_data/154692-OTHER-001-001.docx

See also:

Quote
RFI-Questions and Answers 1

Question 1

Regarding the intent of question 3. Is NASA asking if industry, for some commercial reason, want to have additional post-certification flights during phase 2? Or is NASA suggesting we should actively plan for and justify 1 (or 2 or 3) such missions as a desire of NASA?

Answer:

Certification may include one or more test flights that lead to certification of the commercial transportation system being proposed. NASA assumes that such flights will be proposed as part of the phase 2 contract. Additionally NASA is considering including post-certification missions under the Phase 2 contract, separate from the intended future ISS Services contract. These missions would be the first manned flights of the new Crew Transportation System after NASA certification. They can be considered as transitional missions that fulfill NASA definition of a full servicing mission, per CCT-DRM-1110. Alternatively, these mission(s) may fulfill needs short of those defined in 1110, but provide benefits to both NASA and the commercial provider.

NASA is not suggesting any additional activity or planning on the part of potential bidders. However, since NASA is considering the potential of including at least one additional post-certification mission in phase 2, NASA is seeking input from industry on the number of missions to best achieve both the contractor financial goals and the programmatic goal for minimizing overall program costs, as well as incentivize industry financial contribution in the CTS.

While NASA is constrained by annual and overall budget limitations, NASA desires to consider industry concepts such as quantity/price curves, learning curves, lot purchase discounts and rates of return that allow you to close your business case. This input from industry will aid us as we determine if we should include post-certification ISS missions within the scope of the phase 2 contract and if so, how many and how (in the base or as options or combination).

http://prod.nais.nasa.gov/eps/eps_data/154692-OTHER-002-001.pdf

See also this presentation from last April:
http://prod.nais.nasa.gov/eps/eps_data/155325-OTHER-001-001.pdf
« Last Edit: 07/24/2013 07:05 pm by yg1968 »

Offline GBpatsfan

  • Member
  • Posts: 84
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 86
Why would ACORN be in the acronym list for a NASA dRFP?  ??? ??? ???

Offline docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5456
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 2845
  • Likes Given: 1
14-16m for one side of a docking collar.  Is it me or does that seem really high priced?

An incentive to build their own after the initial sample?
DM

Offline PreferToLurk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 310
  • Liked: 144
  • Likes Given: 24
Why would ACORN be in the acronym list for a NASA dRFP?  ??? ??? ???

Because all federal contracts must explicitly prohibit ACORN from receiving any money. This one is no different.  See page 114 of the dRFP for the clause.   ::)

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3128
  • Liked: 874
  • Likes Given: 444
It was explained a few months ago that the reason for adding post-certification flights is because NASA intends to have two CCtCap companies. Given that a downselect to one will likely be done for the crew transportation services contract, the post-certification flights are a way to provide incentives to the second place company (sort of a consolation prize). They may end up being offered to both companies but they are really there in order to maintain competition as long as possible by providing incentives to the runner-up.
How so? This CCtCap suggests otherwise.
I am not sure that I understand your question. NASA has said that it wants to maintain competition as long as possible and believes that adding post-certification flights during CCtCap is a way to achieve this.

Each CCtCap awardee is guaranteed a minimum of two post-certification missions, with a maximum of six among all  awardees.  E.g., if there are three awards each will get two post-certification missions; if there is one award they could get up to six post-certification missions.  Those appear to be more an incentive for providers to put more skin in the game during the certification process as well as preventing artificial low-ball entry pricing.  It also allows NASA to lock in mission pricing at the time of the CCtCap award(s) for several years if desired, which makes a lot of sense.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7937
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 1351
  • Likes Given: 8993
Quote from: page 8 of the first PDF document
Government Property

The Government will make available a total of 4 NASA Docking System Block 1 units on a no charge-for-use basis for performance of work under this contract. If there are multiple contract awards, the available units will be equitably distributed, if necessary. The first flight unit will be available February, 2016.

Based on this, there will no test flight to the ISS prior to February 2016.
True, odd that. So even if Spacex are ready they won't be able to, unless they build their own and have it certified.

Quote
Quote from: page 9 of the first PDF document
Commercial Passenger(s) and Cargo Requests

Clause H.23 of the dRFP enables the Contractor to propose to manifest Commercial Passengers, cargo or payloads on PCMs for contract price adjustment(s) or other contract consideration. The timing and NASA approval process are provided. (See RFP Clause H.23)

Spaceflight participants could be allowed on post-certification missions.
Intriguing.

I think there is one sting in the tale that may cause trouble. Competitors have to get $500m of 3rd party insurance in case there are claims for damages.

I wonder how difficult it will be to get that kind of coverage at a reasonable price?
BFS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP stainless steel structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of flying in Earth and Mars atmospheres. BFR. The worlds biggest Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP stainless steel structure booster for BFS. First flight to Mars by end of 2022. Forward looking statements. T&C apply. Believe no one. Run your own numbers. So, you are going to Mars to start a better life? Picture it in your mind. Now say what it is out loud.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7937
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 1351
  • Likes Given: 8993
$14 million for a docking mechanism seems incredibly high, especially when you think about how Russia throws away eight per year. I wonder how much those costs can be reduced if the providers choose to manufacture their own.


Quote from: 157250-DRAFT-001-001
Government Property
The Government will make available a total of 4 NASA Docking System Block 1 units on a no charge-for-use basis for performance of work under this contract. If there are multiple contract awards, the available units will be equitably distributed, if necessary. The first flight unit will be available February, 2016. Within the proposal, the Offeror shall describe their approach to enable docking with the ISS. The options include the following:
      1. Government will provide NDS flight hardware units (limited to the noted four) as
Government Furnished Property.
       2. Government will provide NDS Engineering as Government Furnished Data for Industry
to build NDS. The preliminary build-to-print package available in November, 2014 and final build-to-print package available by June, 2016.”
        3. Contractor designs and builds unique docking system that is compatible with SSP 50808
requirements. The Government furnishes no hardware, data, or services.
(See dRFP Clauses G.4, G.5, G.6, G.7, H.14; Provisions L.20-1-TA01, and M.2-TA01)
Intriguing. $14m does sound pretty steep, even given this is fairly complex. However note they can build their own. But note the timing. If you were to start building on the preliminary data package you could still have a vehicle ready to go by late 2015. But if there are serious revisions in the 2016 packet you're back to square one.

You could surmise someone really doesn't want Spacex to be ready years before 2017 for some reason. But I'll leave that thought for another thread.

BTW open question. What vehicles are currently docking or berthing to ISS with NDS? It looks like CCiCAP are the test pilots (literally) for this technology.



BFS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP stainless steel structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of flying in Earth and Mars atmospheres. BFR. The worlds biggest Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP stainless steel structure booster for BFS. First flight to Mars by end of 2022. Forward looking statements. T&C apply. Believe no one. Run your own numbers. So, you are going to Mars to start a better life? Picture it in your mind. Now say what it is out loud.

Offline guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6939
  • Germany
  • Liked: 1906
  • Likes Given: 1968
Intriguing. $14m does sound pretty steep, even given this is fairly complex. However note they can build their own. But note the timing. If you were to start building on the preliminary data package you could still have a vehicle ready to go by late 2015. But if there are serious revisions in the 2016 packet you're back to square one.

My understanding was that the docking adapters are given free to the company. They cannot build cheaper than free. But for commercial flights to non ISS stations in the future they will consider that option.

You could surmise someone really doesn't want Spacex to be ready years before 2017 for some reason. But I'll leave that thought for another thread.


No comment.

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8691
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 404
  • Likes Given: 184
{snip}

BTW open question. What vehicles are currently docking or berthing to ISS with NDS? It looks like CCiCAP are the test pilots (literally) for this technology.

None.  Currently the ISS does not have a NDS.

Until a NDS is fitted to the ISS SpaceX would have to berth its manned Dragon using a CBM.

Tags: