NASA Releases Commercial Crew Draft RFP, Announces CCDEV2 Optional Milestones

[BrightLight]

SLC-4E would require infrastructure development -is it in the current budget plan? If I'm not mistaken the man-rating for the AtlasV already identified a pad,adding an additional launch facility would  help free-up LC-39 (I need to check this) but who will pay for it. the "free" pad SpaceX got from the Air Force apparently cost a bunch! is SLC-4E already set-up for AtlasV and man-rated?

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Here is something to think about. SpaceX can switch out a complete vehicle stack and payload in a day. Just by having two HIF’s at SLC-40 which they will have by 2015 in order to launch both FH and F9 on the pad, two different crew vehicles could be processed simultaneous at SLC-40.

[Jason1701]

Here is something to think about. SpaceX can switch out a complete vehicle stack and payload in a day. Just by having two HIF’s at SLC-40 which they will have by 2015 in order to launch both FH and F9 on the pad, two different crew vehicles could be processed simultaneous at SLC-40.

Good point, but it's probable that a crew access tower (or something built into a strongback) will support crew ingress and egress for a Dragon from only one HIF. Designing the system to interface with hardware in angular positions ninety degrees apart doesn't sound good.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Here is something to think about. SpaceX can switch out a complete vehicle stack and payload in a day. Just by having two HIF’s at SLC-40 which they will have by 2015 in order to launch both FH and F9 on the pad, two different crew vehicles could be processed simultaneous at SLC-40.

Good point, but it's probable that a crew access tower (or something built into a strongback) will support crew ingress and egress for a Dragon from only one HIF. Designing the system to interface with hardware in angular positions ninety degrees apart doesn't sound good.

Pad crew access for a Dream Chaser will be very different than for a CST-100. So the access capability needed to support both by ULA on Atlas V may represent a significant challenge.

As far as oreintation at SLC-40 even though the vehicle comes from a different HIF the oreintation for the crew access if using a seperate movable structure could be the same. A strongback with the crew access built in would make the strongback very heavy, awkward and costly to use, traits that SpaceX is trying to avoid in its pad processing.

[alexw]

But the only two domestic launch sites that have access to ISS orbits (without massive inefficiencies) are KSC/CCAFS and Wallops. And unfortunately a natural disaster could wipe out both.
VAFB is not going to be practical.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=24178.msg695710#msg695710
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=24178.msg696288#msg696288
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=24178.msg696232#msg696232
    It's intriguing. FH and AV552 would have massive performance margin, and F9-M1D might.
    -Alex

[yg1968]

This is good news, especially the "multiple companies" bit! I know several people had voiced a concern that the downselect would be to a single provider.  I know that we're all cheering on our particular favourite horses in this race, but just the fact that there will be more than one winner is great for the industry and for HSF in general IMHO.

Down-select to a single provider expected for Phase 2.  From 148508-DRAFT-001-005 (pg 50):

I.14    NFS 1852.217-71  PHASED ACQUISITION USING DOWN-SELECTION PROCEDURES (MAY 2000)
(a)    This solicitation is for the Commercial Crew Program’s acquisition to facilitate the development of a U.S. commercial crew space transportation capability with the goal of achieving safe, reliable and cost effective access to and from low earth orbit (LEO) including the International Space Station (ISS). The acquisition will be conducted as a two-phased procurement using a competitive down-selection technique between phases. In this technique, two or more contractors will be selected for Phase 1. It is expected that the single contractor for Phase 2 will be chosen from among these contractors after a competitive down-selection.

[snip]

(i)    The anticipated schedule for conducting this phased procurement is provided for your information. These dates are projections only and are not intended to commit NASA to complete a particular action at a given time.
Phase 1 award – July, 2012
Phase 2 synopsis – September, 2013
Phase 2 proposal requested – RFP release in October, 2013
Phase 2 proposal receipt – December, 2013
Phase 2 award – May, 2014

Don't forget this:

Notwithstanding paragraph (a), the competition in Phase 2 may result in the award of multiple contracts if budget allows.

In other words, whether or not a down-select to just one happens depends on whether or not there there's enough money. No surprise there.

So, it's basically up to Congress.

On the issue of how many providers are expected for CCDev-4, the following article is of interest:
http://www.newspacejournal.com/2011/09/21/nasa-plans-to-fund-only-one-ccdev-company-probably-not/

In addition, when talking to Florida Today reporter James Dean yesterday for an article he wrote about CCDev, he shared with me a clarification he received from NASA on that issue. It turns out that the clause in question [the clause suggesting a down selection to only one provider] is a standard one in FAR-based contracts, and that the Commercial Crew Program was “investigating getting a waiver or deviation from this standard clause language for the final RFP.”

[2552]

From AIAA Space 2011:

https://twitter.com/#!/jeff_foust/status/118879437658923009:
McAlister confirms NASA's plan is for >1 company in each of next 2 CCDev phases. Want multiple companies for competition. #aiaaspace

[joek]

The CCP IDC Pre-Soliciation Conference Presentation has been posted (pptx warning, pdf attached).  (Also latest requirements workshop presentation, see here.)

[A_M_Swallow]

I hope that only a few people at each company will require Security Clearances, since getting clearances can put a heavy load on a programme with such short time scales.

Ref IDC_Industry_Day.pdf page 46

•Performance under this contract will involve access to and/or generation of classified information
–Federal Acquisition Regulation clause 52.204-2 (Security Requirements) and DD254 (Department of Defense Contract Security Classification Specification) will be added

[joek]

Not nearly as exciting or interesting as Fobos-Grunt, but worth a note...

The CCIDC draft RFP Q&A #2 was just posted (Q&A #1 that was posted a month ago, but not much of interest).  Mostly T&C minutia, but a few interesting clarifications on government data rights.  May be obvious to the FAR/contracting guru's, but seemed to be some concern/confusion judging by the questions. Emphasis added.

Some additional incentive for respondents to put more than a "nominal amount" of skin in the game.

As provided in the clause, the Government gets “unlimited rights” in data first produced in the performance of the contract exclusively at Government expense. If the pending deviation is approved, the Government gets only “limited rights” in data developed wholly or in part at private expense that embody trade secrets or are commercial or financial and confidential or privileged.  Thus, data that is “co-funded,” i.e., produced in part at private expense, is considered “limited rights data.” Contractors will be able to assert that data was produced in part at private expense by a showing of Contractor investment of more than a nominal amount in creating the data. ...

Appears if you're in for a penny, you're in for a pound.  CCIDC contract winners can't walk away from the subsequent DTEC phase(s) just because they don't want to play any longer, or the government can claim unlimited data rights.

The deviation to FAR 52.227-14 provides the Government less rights in data than it would have received under the standard FAR clause. The Government's intent is to balance its objective of minimizing the Government's acquiring rights in data/computer software while protecting the Government's investment. Absent the deviation language, the Government always takes unlimited rights to data first produced and software first developed in performance of the contract under FAR clause 52.227-14. In the IDC, the Government waives its right to otherwise receive unlimited rights in data and/or software first produced in performance of the contract, but protects its interest to receive unlimited rights in cases where the Contractor is terminated for default, fails to bid on the subsequent phase or provides a proposal on the subsequent phase that is determined unacceptable in accordance with NFS 1815.305-70.

[A_M_Swallow]

Not nearly as exciting or interesting as Fobos-Grunt, but worth a note...

The CCIDC draft RFP Q&A #2 was just posted (Q&A #1 that was posted a month ago, but not much of interest).  Mostly T&C minutia, but a few interesting clarifications on government data rights.  May be obvious to the FAR/contracting guru's, but seemed to be some concern/confusion judging by the questions. Emphasis added.

NASA may wish to ensure that there is never more than 9 months between milestones.  That way there will always have some progress it can include in its annual report to Congress.  Nine months between milestones is used rather than 12 months so the contractor can be up to 3 months late without having to spend months publicly explaining the lateness to nick picking politicians.

[joek]

NASA may wish to ensure that there is never more than 9 months between milestones.  That way there will always have some progress it can include in its annual report to Congress.  Nine months between milestones is used rather than 12 months so the contractor can be up to 3 months late without having to spend months publicly explaining the lateness to nick picking politicians.

What milestones/dates are you speaking of, and from where do you draw such a conclusion?  Certainly nothing in the CCIDC draft RFP or subsequent communications suggests such.

The only nominally prescribed dates are CCIDC start and end.  NASA has set a few high level intermediate milestones, but does not define dates (or amounts, among other things); those (and other potentially more detailed milestones) are TBD and part of bidder's proposals.

[A_M_Swallow]

NASA may wish to ensure that there is never more than 9 months between milestones.  That way there will always have some progress it can include in its annual report to Congress.  Nine months between milestones is used rather than 12 months so the contractor can be up to 3 months late without having to spend months publicly explaining the lateness to nick picking politicians.

What milestones/dates are you speaking of, and from where do you draw such a conclusion?  Certainly nothing in the CCIDC draft RFP or subsequent communications suggests such.

The only nominally prescribed dates are CCIDC start and end.  NASA has set a few high level intermediate milestones, but does not define dates (or amounts, among other things); those (and other potentially more detailed milestones) are TBD and part of bidder's proposals.

Which means that the CCIDC milestones are currently being negotiated.

[joek]

Which means that the CCIDC milestones are currently being negotiated.

No it doesn't mean that "CCIDC milestones are currently being negotiated".  Nor would that be possible at this point.

[erioladastra]

Which means that the CCIDC milestones are currently being negotiated.

No it doesn't mean that "CCIDC milestones are currently being negotiated".  Nor would that be possible at this point.

Correct.  There are several required milestones as noted, but in their IDC proposals the companies will detail what milestones they want to request funding for.  And like CCDev2 not all may be selected.  Each company will likely have different ones.  They must end in CDR.  This will all be worked out next year.

[Confusador]

Correct.  There are several required milestones as noted, but in their IDC proposals the companies will detail what milestones they want to request funding for.  And like CCDev2 not all may be selected.  Each company will likely have different ones.  They must end in CDR.  This will all be worked out next year.

They all have to include CDR, but I thought the most interesting question was the one that indicates they don't have to stop there:

Q.30 Does NASA want to see proposals that “accelerate a CTS” and get beyond CDR, or simply
propose what is necessary to get to CDR?

The structure of the RFP provides Offerors the flexibility to advance beyond the CDR level and
accommodates Offerors with differing entrance levels of design maturity. Offerors define their own
pace of performance for their design maturity and the risk associated with their approach to accelerate
development within the budget and schedule constraints.

[A_M_Swallow]

A project can have major milestones and minor milestones.  Some of the minor milestones can be unfunded, but that tends to be unpopular with contractors.

CDR will almost always be a major milestone.

Minor milestones can include recruitment of staff, repair of the laboratory, arrival of test equipment, publication of the software requirements specification, integration of a sub-system and test results of a new part.  Anything that the project manager can show to a NASA quality inspector.

[Jim]

A project can have major milestones and minor milestones.  Some of the minor milestones can be unfunded, but that tends to be unpopular with contractors.

CDR will almost always be a major milestone.

Minor milestones can include recruitment of staff, repair of the laboratory, arrival of test equipment, publication of the software requirements specification, integration of a sub-system and test results of a new part.  Anything that the project manager can show to a NASA quality inspector.

Again, you show that you have no knowledge of the subject matter. 

A. COTS, CRS, CCDev, CCP and NLS are commercial programs, there are no NASA inspectors.  NASA is only buying services and not hardware.
B.  the  contractors suggest the milestones and NASA agrees.
C.  The contractor is not going to suggest ridiculous  milestones such as staff hiring or facility repairs.  Nor will they suggest any milestone that won't get paid for, much less absurd ones.

Leave the discussions for those with something intelligent to post and save your inane blathering for other sites

[A_M_Swallow]

A project can have major milestones and minor milestones.  Some of the minor milestones can be unfunded, but that tends to be unpopular with contractors.

CDR will almost always be a major milestone.

Minor milestones can include recruitment of staff, repair of the laboratory, arrival of test equipment, publication of the software requirements specification, integration of a sub-system and test results of a new part.  Anything that the project manager can show to a NASA quality inspector.

Again, you show that you have no knowledge of the subject matter. 

A. COTS, CRS, CCDev, CCP and NLS are commercial programs, there are no NASA inspectors.  NASA is only buying services and not hardware.
B.  the  contractors suggest the milestones and NASA agrees.
C.  The contractor is not going to suggest ridiculous  milestones such as staff hiring or facility repairs.  Nor will they suggest any milestone that won't get paid for, much less absurd ones.

Leave the discussions for those with something intelligent to post and save your inane blathering for other sites

That is a very silly statement to write Jim.

A. NASA Inspectors.

    Quoting from the CCP IDC Pre-Soliciation Conference Presentation referenced by Joek above
http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/document_file_get.cfm?docid=343

Slide 39
" H.14 Completion Milestone Payments and Interim Performance-based Payments
Completion Milestone events
Determination of milestone completion
Completion payments are not recoverable
Interim financing payments in accordance with FAR 52.232-32, Performance Based Payments, may be proposed
Interim payments are recoverable until successful accomplishment of Completion Milestone event
Attachment J-4, Milestone Acceptance Criteria and Payment Schedule
"

Someone from the government will check that the milestone have actually be completed.  Possible using the people mentioned in slide 38.


B. Negotiations. 
"B.  the  contractors suggest the milestones and NASA agrees."

Have a look at slide 43

"During Discussions, the Government may negotiate the reduction of an Offeror’s proposed content, schedule and/or price for required milestones and for “work packages” as defined in L.23 and L.24 of the DRFP to allow for multiple awards
"

C. Types of milestone.

"C.  The contractor is not going to suggest ridiculous  milestones such as staff hiring or facility repairs.  Nor will they suggest any milestone that won't get paid for, much less absurd ones."

Staff hiring and facility repairs can be hidden on long contract but unfortunately can have a major effect on the end date of a short contract.  They allow a customer to see that the contractor is actually doing something on a contract.

As for unpaid milestones, all the milestones in the man rating of the Atlas V SAA are unpaid.

[Jim]

As for unpaid milestones, all the milestones in the man rating of the Atlas V SAA are unpaid.

So what?   This is Commercial Crew Draft RFP and not a unpaid or even paid SAA.  Atlas won't be eligible for this by themselves.  They will have to team with someone, so your point is wrong.  Just keep it up, another case of your lack of knowledge.