Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement

[A_M_Swallow]

{snip}

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.

Congress is a court.  For what sounds like a criminal offence the standard of evidence is "Beyond reasonable doubt".

[joek]

This is largely a non-event IMHO.  NASA counsel and IG have already weighed in with the opinion that funded SAA's are inappropriate for CCDev-3, and NASA has already stated its intent to move towards FAR for CCDev-3.

The House language isn't as proscriptive, but they clearly intended to limit additional CCDev funds until NASA provides a commercial crew "acquisition strategy", and acquisition means using FAR:

The sizable increase proposed in the budget request, however, was premature given the still-undefined acquisition strategy for the Commercial Crew Development Round 3 (CCDev 3) awards and the uncertainty behind assumptions about pricing, schedule, market demand, flight opportunities and other economic factors that are essentially unknowable at this time.

Why the Senate insisted on including more proscriptive language is debatable.  Maybe NASA is still considering using funded SAA's for some elements of CCDev-3 and the Senate language is intended to preclude that and force NASA to move towards acquisition sooner rather than later, and specifically to focus future funds on NASA/ISS-specific crew transportation acquisition, not generic commercial crew development.

In an ideal world there would be a more demonstrable and immediate need for generic commercial transportation; there would be time to develop generic commercial transportation capabilities; there would be time to tailor those generic commercial transportation capabilities to NASA/ISS-specific transportation requirements; and there would be budget to support those efforts.  Unfortunately, that's not the world today.

IF CCDev/CCT were to proceed along the same lines as COTS/CRS, we would potentially see some CCDev funded SAA's awarded with no requirement to satisfy NASA/ISS-specific requirements.  The House and Senate language appear to make it clear that is not how they want the funds used, and NASA appears to have previously concluded that time and budget do not support such an approach.

[Cog_in_the_machine]

This is largely a non-event IMHO.  NASA counsel and IG have already weighed in with the opinion that funded SAA's are inappropriate for CCDev-3, and NASA has already stated its intent to move towards FAR for CCDev-3.

Consider though that when NASA weighed in, they were asking for input from industry, meaning it wasn't a final decision. I watched the conference dealing with that and the response wasn't what I would call positive. Since then, I'm not sure what happened with that issue.

Congress is a court.  For what sounds like a criminal offence the standard of evidence is "Beyond reasonable doubt".

What do you call a verdict without a justification? "We believe" is not evidence, it's an opinion. We have the materials to verify that party A did/tried to do thing B which lead/could lead to consequence C, so we believe action D should be taken. This is what I would like to see. So far, there's only the "we believe action D should be taken" part.

Perhaps I've missed something, because I haven't watched recent hearings in their entirety, but did they ever bring up additional restrictions on SAAs during one of them as a result of misconduct? I would think if NASA misused them, it would have come up and caused a ruckus in the hearing threads over here.

That's another thing, NASA itself said that SAAs aren't the way to go, yet the senate claims NASA has tried to abuse that contracting mechanism by using it to do things beyond it's scope. They've done no such thing as far as I can tell. Am I missing something?

[joek]

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.

The rules are NASA policy; per NASA Policy Directive 1050.11 section 1(c):

Funded Agreements are Agreements under which appropriated funds are transferred to a domestic Agreement Partner to accomplish an Agency mission. Funded Agreements may be used only when the Agency's objective cannot be accomplished through the use of a procurement contract, grant, or cooperative agreement.

Why NASA's own policy is so restrictive with respect to funded SAA's or whether NASA could change the policy to be more expansive is another subject and a question for lawyers.  In any case, today the policy is what it is and the rules are what they are.

[Cog_in_the_machine]

Why NASA's own policy is so restrictive with respect to funded SAA's or whether NASA could change the policy to be more expansive is another subject and a question for lawyers.  In any case, today the policy is what it is and the rules are what they are.

Perhaps I should phrase it like this - when did NASA break this rule? With what action? When was a SAA used (or attempted to be used) when it should not have been and with which contractor(s)? The wording by the senate suggests such a violation has occurred.

[yg1968]

The passage on the SAA is in the report but not in the legislation (see pages 74-75):
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1572pcs/pdf/BILLS-112s1572pcs.pdf

[joek]

Why NASA's own policy is so restrictive with respect to funded SAA's or whether NASA could change the policy to be more expansive is another subject and a question for lawyers.  In any case, today the policy is what it is and the rules are what they are.

Perhaps I should phrase it like this - when did NASA break this rule? With what action? When was a SAA used (or attempted to be used) when it should not have been and with which contractor(s)? The wording by the senate suggests such a violation has occurred.

With respect to funded CCDev SAA's, IF you believe the primary objectives of CCDev are and have been to develop...
1. ...generic non-NASA-specific commercial orbital human transportation capabilities with the goal of promoting that and related markets, THEN NASA has not broken the rules.
2. ...NASA ISS crew transportation capabilities with the goal of acquiring NASA ISS crew transportation services, THEN NASA has broken the rules.

At some point in the past CCDev was probably envisioned as starting at (1) then moving to (2) (nominally similar to COTS/CRS).  Time and budget constraints changed some time ago, and require skipping (1) and moving directly to (2).

edit: Whether you believe NASA has previously broken the rules depends on how long ago you believe the landscape changed and CCDev became focused on (2).

[Ronsmytheiii]

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!!!

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.

So it seems pretty necessary, NASA has been talking about this for awhile (not just Congress) Also, we should prioritize ISS transport over the general commercial sector, as it exists now and is threatened by single crew sourcing.

[Robotbeat]

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!!!

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.

So it seems pretty necessary, NASA has been talking about this for awhile (not just Congress) Also, we should prioritize ISS transport over the general commercial sector, as it exists now and is threatened by single crew sourcing.

An SAA is NOT the same as what Swallow is saying. Mischaracterization.

Do we want spaceflight to become more inexpensive, less tied to just government, and more frequent (and thus much safer)? Or do we want to keep things the same way it has been since the start, namely very expensive, government-as-only-real-HSF-customer, infrequent, and very dangerous?

I want improvement. I don't know exactly which contracting approach is right for each specific program, but I do know that this meddling by Congress smells very fishy.

[Cog_in_the_machine]

IF you believe the primary objectives of CCDev are and have been to develop...
1. ...generic non-NASA-specific commercial orbital human transportation capabilities with the goal of promoting that and related markets, THEN NASA has not broken the rules.
2. ...NASA ISS crew transportation capabilities with the goal of acquiring NASA ISS crew transportation services, THEN NASA has broken the rules.

Sounds like lawyer gibberish to me. The second could be considered a part of the first. That's the party line of the administration, as far as I understand it - "by serving as an anchor tenant, we'll help the HSF market grow", essentially. So I guess whether it's permissible or not comes down to whether one thinks there is/might be a non-NASA use for these vehicles or not, correct? Depending on who you ask, you get a different answer to that one.

[Robotbeat]

I seriously think this meddling from Congress happened earlier, before the conference in this video:
http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/page.cfm?ID=32

I just get the feeling that the NASA folk were chastised by Congress and that's what led to the move away from SAA. They seemed rather sheepish in the conference, apologetic in some ways.

I just have a bad feeling about this. Why is there such tremendous dissatisfaction with this from many of the potential commercial crew providers? Why is Congress stepping in? I don't have a lot of information on the answers to these questions. EDIT:But I'm listening to the conference held today, so that might answer some of those questions. http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/page.cfm?ID=32

[Cog_in_the_machine]

Looks like there's a recent status update on the CCP page you linked to. Gonna watch it when I have the time.

[Robotbeat]

Yeah, there was a conference today about it. You can watch the video here: (the sept 16th one)
http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/page.cfm?ID=32

[Robotbeat]

I watched it. Nothing answers why Congress decided to get involved. That part still smells to me.

[joek]

IF you believe the primary objectives of CCDev are and have been to develop...
1. ...generic non-NASA-specific commercial orbital human transportation capabilities with the goal of promoting that and related markets, THEN NASA has not broken the rules.
2. ...NASA ISS crew transportation capabilities with the goal of acquiring NASA ISS crew transportation services, THEN NASA has broken the rules.

Sounds like lawyer gibberish to me. The second could be considered a part of the first. That's the party line of the administration, as far as I understand it - "by serving as an anchor tenant, we'll help the HSF market grow", essentially. So I guess whether it's permissible or not comes down to whether one thinks there is/might be a non-NASA use for these vehicles or not, correct? Depending on who you ask, you get a different answer to that one.

Agree there's room for lawyerly interpretation and the word "commercial" in CCDev is there for a reason--NASA as a customer, not necessarily the only customer, and NASA market as a subset of the larger commercial market.  The operative question is not whether there is a non-NASA use for these vehicles--NASA is proceeding on the assumption is that there will be--but whether NASA has the time and money to fund development for non-NASA use indepedently of NASA-specific needs.

If this was a serial (1) then (2) process, NASA could continue to use SAA's for (1), then proceed to (2).  However, time argues against that approach.  The alternative is to do (2) then (1), or do them simultaneously.  The current NASA strategy is to try and do them simultaneously; specifically, ensure (2) and not preclude (1).  That assumes NASA can get what they need without imposing requirements that make the result too NASA-specific and expensive to be useable for a broader commercial market.  That work is in progress and involves collaboration with the FAA as well as CCDev participants.

I watched it. Nothing answers why Congress decided to get involved. That part still smells to me.

Likely because Congress wants to ensure that *all* additional CCDev funds are used for efforts that are directly traceable to satisfying NASA/ISS crew transportation requirements by 2015/2016.  The result is likely to be a down-select sooner rather than later, and no CCDev money for generic or long term commercial efforts for the foreseeable future.

[clongton]

The rules are NASA policy; per NASA Policy Directive 1050.11 section 1(c):

Funded Agreements are Agreements under which appropriated funds are transferred to a domestic Agreement Partner to accomplish an Agency mission. Funded Agreements may be used only when the Agency's objective cannot be accomplished through the use of a procurement contract, grant, or cooperative agreement.

I have highlighted what I *suspect* might be the offense. SAA's take Congressional oversight out of the funding that Congress made available. Realizing that, Congress required a very narrow interpretation of when these funds may be used and when they may not. It's not a matter of whether or not the cause is a worthy one or not. It's a matter of whether or not the agency could have funded the project thru normal channels. SAA's are designed specifically to allow projects to move forward that would not have otherwise made the cut thru normal procurement channels. Apparently the Congress feels that in this instance, the use of the SAA was not legally allowed per the language of the funding authorization. In other words, while the project was worthy, NASA overstepped its bounds in the use of these funds. This project should have gone thru the normal procurement route, not a SAA. If true, this is a clear misappropriation of funds. In response, we notice that NASA did not object to the Congressional inquiry, but quietly complied. YMMV.

[go4mars]

whether NASA has the time and money to fund development for non-NASA use indepedently of NASA-specific needs.

I don't understand the difference.  What would be an example of "non-NASA use" hardware that is paid for by CCDev? 

[go4mars]

The rules are NASA policy; per NASA Policy Directive 1050.11 section 1(c):

Funded Agreements are Agreements under which appropriated funds are transferred to a domestic Agreement Partner to accomplish an Agency mission. Funded Agreements may be used only when the Agency's objective cannot be accomplished through the use of a procurement contract, grant, or cooperative agreement.

I have highlighted what I *suspect* might be the offense. SAA's take Congressional oversight out of the funding that Congress made available. Realizing that, Congress required a very narrow interpretation of when these funds may be used and when they may not. It's not a matter of whether or not the cause is a worthy one or not. It's a matter of whether or not the agency could have funded the project thru normal channels. SAA's are designed specifically to allow projects to move forward that would not have otherwise made the cut thru normal channels. Apparently the Congress feels that in this instance, the use of the SAA was not legally allowed per the language of the funding authorization. In other words, while the project was worthy, NASA overstepped its bounds in the use of these funds. This project should have gone thru the normal procurement route, not a SAA. In response, we notice that NASA did not object to the Congressional inquiry. YMMV.

I bet you're right.  Though it could be argued that if part of the "objective" includes achieving all this stuff within a highly constrained budget.  i.e. it cannot "be accomplished through use of a procurement contract, grant, or cooperative agreement" within the alloted budget.

[clongton]

The rules are NASA policy; per NASA Policy Directive 1050.11 section 1(c):

Funded Agreements are Agreements under which appropriated funds are transferred to a domestic Agreement Partner to accomplish an Agency mission. Funded Agreements may be used only when the Agency's objective cannot be accomplished through the use of a procurement contract, grant, or cooperative agreement.

I have highlighted what I *suspect* might be the offense. SAA's take Congressional oversight out of the funding that Congress made available. Realizing that, Congress required a very narrow interpretation of when these funds may be used and when they may not. It's not a matter of whether or not the cause is a worthy one or not. It's a matter of whether or not the agency could have funded the project thru normal channels. SAA's are designed specifically to allow projects to move forward that would not have otherwise made the cut thru normal channels. Apparently the Congress feels that in this instance, the use of the SAA was not legally allowed per the language of the funding authorization. In other words, while the project was worthy, NASA overstepped its bounds in the use of these funds. This project should have gone thru the normal procurement route, not a SAA. In response, we notice that NASA did not object to the Congressional inquiry. YMMV.

I bet you're right.  Though it could be argued that if part of the "objective" includes achieving all this stuff within a highly constrained budget.  i.e. it cannot "be accomplished through use of a procurement contract, grant, or cooperative agreement" within the alloted budget.

It's the only explanation that makes any sense to me and when I saw it, it was like a light going on. I have to deal with contracts all the time and the hardest part of it all is making sure that this or that activity is funded from the correct bucket of money. It has nothing to do with the project or activity itself. It has everything to do with how it is *supposed* to be funded. If I am right then there is nothing cynical going on here at all, like I said previously. It's Congress doing its job properly, not micromanaging.

[Namechange User]

Haha.  I told you all that this was coming.  Welcome to "commercial".  Guess it sucks when "the internet" and their ideology is proven wrong. 

This is what you get when you have no strategy for anything moving forward on anything.  When "the internet" and "space advocates" demand more government money for "commercial" without thinking anything through just the demand for more money and the actual NASA employees needing to find a program to latch onto. 

More or the same amount of money but nothing else equals the bigger stick for NASA.  Many of you "advocates" are in some degree responsible for this.  Relish the bed you have made through your advocacy.