Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement

[Jim]

Yes I know they *can* be but the SAA with ULA is *un* funded, correct (I wasn't clear)? If so then NASA does not have the authority to impose anything beyond setting the specs it wants to see. It's then up to ULA to *choose* whether or not to participate and if they do then because they are funding it 100% with their own money then ULA sets the rules *not* NASA. ULA knows what they are doing. The best thing NASA can do is to *get out of the way* and let ULA do its thing without interference.

Huh?  So what is your point?  NASA isnt adding more than what is in the SAA

[yg1968]

These parts of the NASA OIG Report are relevant for the purpose of the discussion:

See p. 12 of the report (p. 24 of the PDF):

As one potential customer of the private sector, NASA expects the CCDev Space Act Agreements to result in commercial capabilities that consider the Agency’s commercial crew transportation system certification requirements, but is not dictating specific system elements or mandating compliance with specific requirements. Rather, each participant operating under a CCDev Space Act Agreement is free to determine the system requirements and concepts that it believes best serve its target markets.

Although NASA is the biggest and most viable customer for these companies in the near term, because compliance with NASA’s requirements is not mandatory it is possible that the companies’ designs will not track all of NASA’s requirements. To mitigate this risk, NASA may perform an analysis to identify shortfalls between the companies’ designs and the Agency’s requirements to improve the vehicle design or correct a known issue or defect. However, as discussed below, proceeding in this manner could create additional financial risks for the Agency.

See also p. 17 of the report (p. 30 of the PDF):

Oversight in the Development, Test, and Evaluation Phase. Once the design phase has ended, NASA may award contracts, Space Act Agreements, or both for commercial vehicle development, test, and evaluation. At that point, the Agency will be both stimulating a commercial crew industry and assisting with the development of safe, reliable, and cost-effective commercial vehicles that meet NASA’s Certification Requirements. While NASA would still need to maintain insight into the development of each vehicle, at that stage in the process the Agency may assume more of an oversight role in granting approval or direction to companies as they move toward certification. As of May 2011, NASA had not finalized the oversight model for this phase, including defining key milestones regarding what will be required of commercial companies.

Establishing an insight/oversight model, however, is not without risks, particularly with respect to ensuring fair and open competition if, for example, the Agency were to transition from Space Act Agreements in the design phase to fixed-price contracts in the development, test, and evaluation phase. NASA would need to ensure it structured its insight during the design phase of CCDev so as not to give participants an unfair competitive advantage over non-participants. For example, although NASA’s solicitation for vehicle development and crew transportation services would be open to non-participants, if NASA identifies differences in partners’ designs and NASA requirements, only CCDev partners would have received that analysis, which could increase the likelihood that their vehicles will meet contract requirements.

NASA has received at least one question in response to the CCDev 2 announcement for proposals regarding the relationship between CCDev awards and future contracts. An industry representative inquired whether NASA anticipates overlap between CCDev 2 and any future procurement of commercial crew demonstration or transportation services.

NASA responded that there is no relationship between the two phases of acquisition. However, if NASA provides its CCDev partners information relevant to the differences between their designs and NASA requirements, non-CCDev companies may perceive that as an unfair competitive advantage. According to the Agency’s Space Act Agreements Guide, such a relationship or perceived relationship could raise conflict of interest concerns. If NASA fails to address such potential conflicts or develop appropriate mitigation plans, the Agency could be faced with a bid protest, which could cause delays in the procurement.

http://oig.nasa.gov/audits/reports/FY11/IG-11-022.pdf

[yg1968]

Yes I know they *can* be but the SAA with ULA is *un* funded, correct (I wasn't clear)? If so then NASA does not have the authority to impose anything beyond setting the specs it wants to see. It's then up to ULA to *choose* whether or not to participate and if they do then because they are funding it 100% with their own money then ULA sets the rules *not* NASA. ULA knows what they are doing. The best thing NASA can do is to *get out of the way* and let ULA do its thing without interference.

Huh?  So what is your point?  NASA isnt adding more than what is in the SAA

Perhaps, one way around the problem is to have NASA provide advice and oversight services relating to the certification requirements be done through unfunded SAAs (as was done in the case of ULA). Non-CCDev companies would be eligible for these agreements in order to avoid the conflicts of interests that are mentionned by the NASA OIG. The development of the spacecraft or LV would continue to be done through funded SAAs.

This May 20, 2011 RFI seems to be going in that direction:
http://prod.nais.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/eps/synopsis.cgi?acqid=146443

[joek]

A bit late; this was published Aug 17 but haven't seen it posted... NASA's written response to questions raised during the July 20 forum as to why the move from SAA to FAR for CCDev-3, and why COTS could be done under SAA and CCDev-3 can not.  In brief...

COTS SAA's are not models for CCDev-3.  Under COTS, NASA did not impose any requirements other than normal and prudent management requirements present in any SAA.  Also, NASA didn't buy anything (take ownership of an item) under COTS.  If the COTS participants wanted to use the ISS as part of their capability demonstrations, they would have to meet the ISS interface requirements (SSP 50808) to ensure the safety of the ISS, just as would be required of any SAA partner using NASA facilities.

The choice to use ISS by COTS participants to demonstrate resupply capabilities (and thus meet SSP 50808) was not mandated, as "Participants may propose an alternative orbital test bed for the capability demonstrations.”  I.e., COTS SAA's were intended and constructed to develop and demonstrate [generic] commercial resupply capabilities, not ISS resupply capabilities.  (Of course if they wanted a CRS contract they would have to meet SSP 50808 requirements, but CRS is FAR, not SAA.)

Opinion... NASA could probably defer the shift from SAA to FAR for CCDev, but it may potentially take longer (more phases) and maybe cost more.  NASA is effectively prioritizing "NASA ISS crew" over "[generic] commercial crew" in order to meet ISS crew needs by 2015-2016 and apparently feel the need to start imposing requirements to ensure they get what they need when they need it sooner rather than later.  (E.g., see requirements in this thread)

edit: clarify what's in the report vs. my opinion.

[Norm Hartnett]

Opinion... NASA could probably defer the shift from SAA to FAR for CCDev, but it may potentially take longer (more phases) and maybe cost more.  NASA is effectively prioritizing "NASA ISS crew" over "[generic] commercial crew" in order to meet ISS crew needs by 2015-2016 and apparently feel the need to start imposing requirements to ensure they get what they need when they need it sooner rather than later.  (E.g., see requirements in this thread)

edit: clarify what's in the report vs. my opinion.

Thanks for the update joek. I was initially surprised that there was not more public outcry from the industry about this but realized that "don't bite the hand that feeds you" still applies even though it is going to add massive costs to the CCDEV program. <sigh>

I certainly question the theory that the COTS Funded SAA was not for developing supply capability for the ISS, typical lawyer hairsplitting hogwash IMO.

It is interesting that, once again, NASA's response focused on the cost accounting and Intellectual Property aspects of FAR while it appeared that most of industry was far more worried on all the fair hiring practices, small business requirements, and etc. as drivers of increased costs under FAR.

There is no doubt that the desire to bring all of the requirements you referenced from the other thread into the development process early was the primary motivation for switching from Funded SAA's to a FAR based contract process but I can't help but wonder if the additional costs both in requirement compliance and in limiting innovation are going to offset the supposed savings in money and time you suspect they seek.

I remain far less hopeful about America developing commercial crewed capability than I was six months ago.

[Jim]

I remain far less hopeful about America developing commercial crewed capability than I was six months ago.

The sky is not falling.  This is not going to change things.  The companies have FAR contracts and so it is not like they will have to learn to do anything.

[A_M_Swallow]

Opinion... NASA could probably defer the shift from SAA to FAR for CCDev, but it may potentially take longer (more phases) and maybe cost more.  NASA is effectively prioritizing "NASA ISS crew" over "[generic] commercial crew" in order to meet ISS crew needs by 2015-2016 and apparently feel the need to start imposing requirements to ensure they get what they need when they need it sooner rather than later.  (E.g., see requirements in this thread)

Does NASA need to do anything more than include a CCDev-3 milestone, paying half of the total payment, that requires astronauts shall be carried to the International Space Station and and safely returned to Earth by 31st December 2015?


COTS were development agreements and CRS are operational contracts.
CCDev are development agreements, the equivalent operational contracts may need a name.

[Jim]

Does NASA need to do anything more than include a CCDev-3 milestone, paying half of the total payment, that requires astronauts shall be carried to the International Space Station and and safely returned to Earth by 31st December 2015?

Yes, it does and this is obvious to those with a clue.

[joek]

I remain far less hopeful about America developing commercial crewed capability than I was six months ago.

I remain optimistic as everyone appears to be working hard to make this work (per the NASA OIG report linked to in yg1968's previous post and the FAA's COMSTAC efforts).  Also, the funding profile for commercial crew has changed substantially since it was originally envisioned, and Congress is pushing hard for NASA to come up with an acquisition strategy ASAP.

While we may not get the originally envisioned broad-based commercial capabilities soon, I expect we'll at least get ISS crew capability.  The trick will be ensuring balance between NASA requirements and FAA regulations so potential not-just-NASA commercial offerings have a chance.  That IMHO is still a big challenge and a much more significant factor in the ultimate success of those commercial offerings than specific contract mechanisms.

CCDev are development agreements, the equivalent operational contracts may need a name.

At the moment it is referred to as "Commercial Crew Transportation" (CCT).

[yg1968]

Looks like the Senate doesn't like Space Act Agreements either, See the FY2012 CJS Legislative Report:

NASA Policy Directive 1050.1I states that funded Space Act
Agreements may be used only when the Agency’s objective cannot
be accomplished through the use of a procurement contract, grant,
or cooperative agreement. The Committee believes that the current
practice by NASA has gone beyond what is cited under NASA’s
own policy directive. Such misuse of these authorities undermines
the oversight of NASA in the procurement process and threatens
crew safety. For future rounds of commercial crew competitions
and acquisitions, NASA shall limit the use of funded Space Act
Agreements as stated in the directive in order to preserve critical
NASA oversight of Federal funds provided for spacecraft and
launch vehicle development.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26787.msg808000#msg808000

[Robotbeat]

Looks like the Senate doesn't like Space Act Agreements either:

NASA Policy Directive 1050.1I states that funded Space Act
Agreements may be used only when the Agency’s objective cannot
be accomplished through the use of a procurement contract, grant,
or cooperative agreement. The Committee believes that the current
practice by NASA has gone beyond what is cited under NASA’s
own policy directive. Such misuse of these authorities undermines
the oversight of NASA in the procurement process and threatens
crew safety. For future rounds of commercial crew competitions
and acquisitions, NASA shall limit the use of funded Space Act
Agreements as stated in the directive in order to preserve critical
NASA oversight of Federal funds provided for spacecraft and
launch vehicle development.

WTF?

[yg1968]

WTF as in "Win The Future?"

[Robotbeat]

WTF as in Win the Future?

Still, this is ridiculous that Congress is micro-managing like this. Who put this part into the document? This reeks of undue lobbyist interference. I mean, it could be partly due to lobbying by the astronaut corp (guarantee that's NOT the only reason!!!), but honestly, we can have BOTH low cost AND high crew safety, but not with directives by Congress like this!!!

[yg1968]

WTF as in Win the Future?

Still, this is ridiculous that Congress is micro-managing like this. Who put this part into the document? This reeks of undue lobbyist interference.

I agree.

[peter-b]

When I see something come out of Congress on the subject of NASA that doesn't reek of undue lobbyist interference, it'll be a wondeful day.

[Robotbeat]

Seriously, it seems that as soon as something good, efficient, and effective is happening with NASA HSF, Congress has to screw it up.

[clongton]

Still, this is ridiculous that Congress is micro-managing like this.

Chris, Congress is not micromanaging in this case. They are required by the Constitution to provide oversight of the funds it passes to agencies to execute the nation's business. The Congress created the SSA's to relax that requirement a little on NASA and in exchange, NASA is expected to be judicious in their use of the authority that the Congress has delegated to them. In this case Congress believes that NASA has overstepped the intent of that delegated authority and is simply pulling in the reigns to ensure compliance with the intent of the SAA's.

If you are held responsible for your mother's money and you allow your trusted friend some latitude in helping you use it with the expectation that he will be careful with it, and you come to believe that your friend is instead playing loose with that trust, wouldn't you call him to account? That's exactly what is happening here.

Whether NASA is or is not playing loose with the SAA's is not the issue. NASA doesn't have any inherent right to write those SAA's themselves, except as the Congress has delegated to them. For whatever reason, right or wrong, Congress believes NASA is not adhering to the intent of the delegated authority and is pulling it back a notch to ensure compliance, as they are Constitutionally required to do.

Congress wrote the rules and delegated the authority to NASA with the expectation that NASA would follow those rules. It would appear that NASA did not follow the rules so now Congress is taking corrective action. There is nothing cynical happening here. If anything, it will keep NASA out of trouble by mandating compliance with the SAA Act.

[A_M_Swallow]

WTF as in Win the Future?

Still, this is ridiculous that Congress is micro-managing like this. Who put this part into the document? This reeks of undue lobbyist interference. I mean, it could be partly due to lobbying by the astronaut corp (guarantee that's NOT the only reason!!!), but honestly, we can have BOTH low cost AND high crew safety, but not with directives by Congress like this!!!

It was inadvisable for a lobbyist to high light this.  Congressmen many not know anything about rockets but they can read.  The suspicion that one of the reasons SAA projects are cheaper than FAR projects is that Congress has been tricked into mandating unnecessary paperwork.  On a cost plus contract the contractors charge the government by the word.

[go4mars]

If ...you come to believe that your friend is instead playing loose with that trust, wouldn't you call him to account? That's exactly what is happening here.

For whatever reason, right or wrong, Congress believes NASA is not adhering to the intent of the delegated authority and is pulling it back a notch to ensure compliance, as they are Constitutionally required to do.

There is nothing cynical happening here.

When we were teenagers, my brother got a part-time job as a cleaning guy at a hospital.  They gave him a list of tasks, which he had difficulty stretching out to 3 hours of work, but had an 8 hour shift to fill.  The union guys physically threatened him for making them look bad. 

My take is that congress doesn't want the SAA milestone-based approach to make their Swine Launch System look rediculously bad in terms of bang for buck (even more) or more importantly become unpopular in their districts so they are burdening a more efficient process.  "Cool it with SAA's.  We are adding a mandatory snout requirement." 

[Cog_in_the_machine]

The Congress created the SSA's to relax that requirement a little on NASA and in exchange, NASA is expected to be judicious in their use of the authority that the Congress has delegated to them. In this case Congress believes that NASA has overstepped the intent of that delegated authority

How? What makes them think this? If they're going to place restrictions on certain procurement mechanisms, they could at least explain precisely what NASA did wrong that prompted this.

Whether NASA is or is not playing loose with the SAA's is not the issue.

It should be. What are the indications that they have?

Congress wrote the rules and delegated the authority to NASA with the expectation that NASA would follow those rules. It would appear that NASA did not follow the rules

Evidence please. "The Committee says so" doesn't count.