ISS COMMERCIAL RESUPPLY SERVICES (COTS II) Draft RFP

[Jim]

The draft RFP is out for review

http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/issresupply/

[Alpha Control]

Most interesting, Jim. I've only read the beginning of the Draft RFP, but this part caught my eye:

"I.A.2   PERIOD COVERED BY PROCUREMENT

This effort covers a contract period of 7 years.  The total period of performance for this effort is January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2015."

I'm not familiar with the detail of government RFPs. Does this means that NASA expecting the commercial service to be available starting in Jan. '09, or is this more of a legal stmt?

Thanks,
David

[Norm Hartnett]

Thank you Jim that made some nice light reading.

It’s been several decades since I did any government procurement so please correct me if any of my surmises are wrong.

It appears as though this allows NASA to enter into contracts with several contractors without committing to purchasing services from any of them. If and when NASA decides that it does need a delivery to the ISS they would issue a Request for Proposal for a Task Order to each of the awarded contractors. NASA would then select a contractor based on the prices offered under the initial contract as modified by NASA’s perception of the contractor’s ability to perform the mission and several other criteria.

This would, so far as I understand, take place no later than 18 months prior to the mission delivery date, which would explain the 2009 date since it is repeatedly stated that the first mission would be no earlier than beginning of FY2010.

There is also a clause that permits an “On-Ramp” for later contractors who may not be able to bid now to enter the contracting process.

I haven’t read the addendum as yet, which looks to contain some serious meat, but at first read this appears to offer considerable flexibility to both NASA and the prospective contractors. I had feared a stereotypical monolithic 7-year contract to be fulfilled by the usual suspects but this does not seem to be that sort of thing at all. Lots of possibility for competition and it appears as though the COTS I contractors will have a substantial advantage since their fulfillment of COTS I milestones is a fulfillment of some of the criteria for Task Order prerequisites. Further the partial awards of cash based on milestones may allow “marginal” COTS II contractors to close their business case and compete.

One thing that raised my eyebrows was “The Government may issue orders requiring delivery to multiple destinations or performance at multiple locations.”

[Jim]

Norm Hartnett - 29/2/2008  12:52 AM

There is also a clause that permits an “On-Ramp” for later contractors who may not be able to bid now to enter the contracting process.

I haven’t read the addendum as yet, which looks to contain some serious meat, but at first read this appears to offer considerable flexibility to both NASA and the prospective contractors. I had feared a stereotypical monolithic 7-year contract to be fulfilled by the usual suspects but this does not seem to be that sort of thing at all. Lots of possibility for competition and it appears as though the COTS I contractors will have a substantial advantage since their fulfillment of COTS I milestones is a fulfillment of some of the criteria for Task Order prerequisites. Further the partial awards of cash based on milestones may allow “marginal” COTS II contractors to close their business case and compete.

That's how NASA (KSC) procures launch services for unmanned launch vehicles.  The NLS (NASA Launch Services) contract is structured the same way, IDIQ.  Boeing and LM on ramped when came out in 97, and then later on ramped the EELV's.  OSC on ramped just few years ago.  Any one can on ramp if they meet some minimum requirements (which have been reduced).  Now they don't even have to have a successful launch (but they have to have one to be able to bid on a task order).  Twice a year there are "open seasons"  where ALP's (new word - Alternative Launch Providers) can submit proposals to on ramp. Also, companies already on contract can on ramp new vehicles.   Currently, NASA is awaiting emerging Alternative Launch Providers to submit proposals.

http://www.ksc.nasa.gov/procurement/nls/


GSFC has a similar contract for standardized spacecraft buses.  Rapid Spacecraft Development Office.  http://rsdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/index.cfm

And the same type of contractual mechanism is use for payload processing facilities.  Astrotech and SSI are both on contract.

[Jim]

Norm, you hit it on the button

[Norm Hartnett]

Jim - 29/2/2008  3:53 AM
That's how NASA (KSC) procures launch services for unmanned launch vehicles.  The NLS (NASA Launch Services) contract is structured the same way, IDIQ.  Boeing and LM on ramped when came out in 97, and then later on ramped the EELV's.  OSC on ramped just few years ago.  Any one can on ramp if they meet some minimum requirements (which have been reduced).  Now they don't even have to have a successful launch (but they have to have one to be able to bid on a task order).  Twice a year there are "open seasons"  where ALP's (new word - Alternative Launch Providers) can submit proposals to on ramp. Also, companies already on contract can on ramp new vehicles.   Currently, NASA is awaiting emerging Alternative Launch Providers to submit proposals.
.

Hum, this seems to strike an interesting balance. SpaceX and OSC will have some advantage since their COTS I milestones will contribute to their qualification under COTS II. On the other hand Boeing, LM, and OSC have experience with the procurement processes of COTS II that SpaceX may lack. Given the size of the overall COTS II contract do you expect that Boeing and LM will submit bids? Or is it more likely that they may pursue partnerships that utilize their LVs?

I noticed specific wording in the contract that said “Note: The Buy American Act is not applicable in this solicitation or contract.” Does this mean that foreign contractors can enter?

Finally Dr. Griffin was before the Senate Commerce Space Subcommittee day before yesterday and Senator Bill Nelson suggested some of the work force issues at KSC might be solved by accelerating Phase D of NASA's Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program, which would develop commercial crew transportation capability to the space station. Griffin promised to report back on the feasibility of the idea.

Since there is no reference to Phase D in this version of COTS II would NASA add this as a new Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) to the COTS II contract or would NASA view manned access as sufficiently critical as to require a separate and more stringent contract?

[Jim]

I would think "Phase D" would be a separate contract.  Don't want to muck up this one.

As for ULA, LM and Boeing, they can team with who they want.  COTS I "losers" can still go for CRS but still have to have a Demonstration mission

As for the "Buy American",  pg 52 requires US Launch vehicle

[Cretan126]

 

  Any one can on ramp if they meet some minimum requirements (which have been reduced). Now they don't even have to have a successful launch (but they have to have one to be able to bid on a task order). Twice a year there are "open seasons" where ALP's (new word - Alternative Launch Providers) can submit proposals to on ramp. Also, companies already on contract can on ramp new vehicles. Currently, NASA is awaiting emerging Alternative Launch Providers to submit proposals.

I believe that SpaceX submitted an NLS on-ramp proposal last year, but I haven't heard if NASA ever did anything with it.

[Norm Hartnett]

Jim - 29/2/2008  8:49 AM
As for ULA, LM and Boeing, they can team with who they want.  COTS I "losers" can still go for CRS but still have to have a Demonstration mission
 

Ah, yes, poorly worded question, sorry. What I was wondering was whether you thought that ULA would bid on this contract as an entity.

I assume that both ULA and COTS I “losers” would have to self-finance a Demonstration mission, I didn’t see any provisions for funding such a mission in the contract except as a portion of a standard mission (<20%).

[Jim]

ULA doesn't do spacecraft.  It needs a partner.  

I would agree on self financing

[Jim]

Cretan126 - 29/2/2008  12:17 PM
I believe that SpaceX submitted an NLS on-ramp proposal last year, but I haven't heard if NASA ever did anything with it.

Hmmmmmmmm

[antonioe]

Jim:

Got you PM.  Unfortunately, something is preventing me from either answering PM's or even creating new ones.  I know it's not my browser, 'cause I booted my machine undex Linux, tryied sending a PM using Firefox, and I got the same result: when I hit the "reply" or 'send this user a PM' all I get is the list of my inbox messages, no new message dit window... maybe I've exceeded a quota somewhere or I've managed to tick off Chris badly... :laugh:

In any case, the answer to your question is yes.  Feel free to e-mail me at my home e-mail address which is on my public profile.  Same to all the people who have PM'ed me recently and are wondering why I'm not answering.

Antonio

[Jim]

The Final RFP is out

http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/issresupply/

[TrueBlueWitt]

Looks like it's COTS or bust!  NASA will not be requesting any additional Progress vehicles to cover any gap in delivery capability.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/progress041708.xml&headline=NASA%20Wants%20All-commercial%20ISS%20Resupply&channel=space

[Analyst]

Risky. Time will tell.

Analyst

[Namechange User]

Maybe, but I think that is a good thing.  There are those out there that wanted this before really committing to anything finacially because what could be percieved as "lack of will" from NASA to purchase it.  What this RFP says is we have to purchase services.  I see this as very good.

[iamlucky13]

Analyst - 17/4/2008 10:52 AM

Risky. Time will tell.

Analyst

COTS isn't the only factor. Don't forget the ATV and HTV.

OV-106 - 17/4/2008  10:55 AM

Maybe, but I think that is a good thing.  There are those out there that wanted this before really committing to anything finacially because what could be percieved as "lack of will" from NASA to purchase it.  What this RFP says is we have to purchase services.  I see this as very good.

I only skimmed the RFP (extremely dry reading). Could you clarify how we have to purchase services? Or did you mean merely there's now greater incentive to purchase without the Progress option?

[Antares]

According to other releases on that web site, the masses in the RFP are, to borrow a term, "the gap" between what Station wants/needs and what is already allocated to ATV, HTV, Progress and STS.  If any of those have a bad day, the COTS numbers will only grow.  If one of the contingency STS flights has to be used for something else, the numbers grow.  If I read the tea leaves correctly, the letter to Congress and Gerstenmaier's comments are to show this isn't a development project any more.  Station has to have this.

[Namechange User]

iamlucky13 - 17/4/2008  2:53 PM

OV-106 - 17/4/2008  10:55 AM

Maybe, but I think that is a good thing.  There are those out there that wanted this before really committing to anything finacially because what could be percieved as "lack of will" from NASA to purchase it.  What this RFP says is we have to purchase services.  I see this as very good.

I only skimmed the RFP (extremely dry reading). Could you clarify how we have to purchase services? Or did you mean merely there's now greater incentive to purchase without the Progress option?

I don't have any insight as to how the contracts would be established between NASA and whatever company.  I just meant without having Progress to rely on, there will be greater incentive for NASA to purchase from someone (which the companies who will propose will clearly like) and it should trigger more of an interest from companies knowing NASA has to be serious about purchasing.

On another note, this could partially be politics, setting things in motion in order to point to a reason for why Shuttle needs to fly a little longer to help close the gap.

[iamlucky13]

OV-106 - 18/4/2008 7:00 AM

I just meant without having Progress to rely on, there will be greater incentive for NASA to purchase from someone (which the companies who will propose will clearly like) and it should trigger more of an interest from companies knowing NASA has to be serious about purchasing.

On another note, this could partially be politics, setting things in motion in order to point to a reason for why Shuttle needs to fly a little longer to help close the gap.

Ahh...there's a good point I wasn't considering.

Regarding one of the replies further up about ATV, HTV, or Shuttle setbacks affecting the amount of COTS purchases, the converse should also apply: COTS setbacks affect ATV or HTV committments...or shuttle extensions, which due to Shuttle infrastructure costs would likely only push back Ares 1/Orion development without appreciably shortening the gap.