Author Topic: NASA Releases Commercial Crew Draft RFP, Announces CCDEV2 Optional Milestones (Read 66032 times)

marsavian · « **Reply #40 on:** 09/20/2011 09:50 am »

Quote from: Robotbeat on 09/20/2011 12:22 am

So, 7.5% is small business utilization? What the heck? I guess somebody called a Congress person. I remember hearing about some subcontractors whining about how SpaceX wouldn't use their over-priced solution...

Could offloading say eventual manned Dragon payload processing to Astrotech count to this 7.5% clause or is this just manned Dragon development activity ?

Diagoras · « **Reply #41 on:** 09/20/2011 11:16 am »

So, is this a reaction to the House's 350 million or the Senate's 500 million? Also, standard DFTT disclaimer, guys.

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #42 on:** 09/20/2011 11:42 am »

Late to the party, but I'm not going to edit a bunch of posts, because someone's acting all roudy and the reaction is to quote it. Just be civil for pity's sake

john smith 19 · « **Reply #43 on:** 09/20/2011 11:48 am »

A very interesting video, and some equally interesting links.

It seems (from the video) that the descriptions of "Milestone payments" and adherence to NASA "requirements" during the earlier SSA's were in fact *unenforceable* and that in fact the whole process has operated on the goodwill of *both* sides up to now. More a polite agreement than an enforceable contract (still pretty impressive progress when committed people move toward a common goal).

People here have talked about this being a Firm Fixed Price agreement under FAR but the *whole* point of this meeting was to emphasize that they are working hard to ensure this is *not* the case.

EG No *detailed* cost data to be supplied to NASA (pity about this. It might be the *only* way the NAFCOM cost model values might be brought down a bit),

No nosing about into *every* subsystem on the vehicle or its launch vehicle.

Milestones tailored to *individual* vehicle designs ("detailed wing stress analysis completion" would be a bit pointless for CTS-100, Dragon and Blue Origin) and the experience level of the companies involved.

I also note that they are adamant this will be *fixed* price and NASA's exposure to cost will be *strictly* limited. You almost get the feeling the programme staff have seen projects turn into permanent money pits that have produce no *tangible* benefit to the Agency and don't want that to happen here.

Having been surprised most of this is *not* available in an SAA I'm even more surprised some form "intermediate" contract, between the near totally hands off SAA and the we-are-ordering-a-full-cavity-search-of-all-your-employees-now approach under FAR was not implemented *decades* ago.

The devil will be in the contract details and with many hands at NASA pulling the levers it definitely could be FUBAR but this just *might* be the model for a new contract template.

Time will tell if they are successful.

Diagoras · « **Reply #44 on:** 09/20/2011 01:45 pm »

Quote from: john smith 19 on 09/20/2011 11:48 am

A very interesting video, and some equally interesting links.

It seems (from the video) that the descriptions of "Milestone payments" and adherence to NASA "requirements" during the earlier SSA's were in fact *unenforceable* and that in fact the whole process has operated on the goodwill of *both* sides up to now. More a polite agreement than an enforceable contract (still pretty impressive progress when committed people move toward a common goal).

People here have talked about this being a Firm Fixed Price agreement under FAR but the *whole* point of this meeting was to emphasize that they are working hard to ensure this is *not* the case.

EG No *detailed* cost data to be supplied to NASA (pity about this. It might be the *only* way the NAFCOM cost model values might be brought down a bit),

No nosing about into *every* subsystem on the vehicle or its launch vehicle.

Milestones tailored to *individual* vehicle designs ("detailed wing stress analysis completion" would be a bit pointless for CTS-100, Dragon and Blue Origin) and the experience level of the companies involved.

I also note that they are adamant this will be *fixed* price and NASA's exposure to cost will be *strictly* limited. You almost get the feeling the programme staff have seen projects turn into permanent money pits that have produce no *tangible* benefit to the Agency and don't want that to happen here.

Having been surprised most of this is *not* available in an SAA I'm even more surprised some form "intermediate" contract, between the near totally hands off SAA and the we-are-ordering-a-full-cavity-search-of-all-your-employees-now approach under FAR was not implemented *decades* ago.

The devil will be in the contract details and with many hands at NASA pulling the levers it definitely could be FUBAR but this just *might* be the model for a new contract template.

Time will tell if they are successful.

Thank you very much for that analysis, john. It's nice to know there's still hope.

Lurker Steve · « **Reply #45 on:** 09/20/2011 02:17 pm »

Quote from: Diagoras on 09/20/2011 11:16 am

So, is this a reaction to the House's 350 million or the Senate's 500 million? Also, standard DFTT disclaimer, guys.

I don't understand why people think a 350 million dollar budget will cause a down-select to a single vendor.

The current CCDev-2 awards were for roughly 75 million each, right ? Continuing at the same funding level, that's 75 mil * 4 = 300 million, plus another 50 million for NASA to administer the program. The current year commerical development budget might have been larger, but NASA was also funding COTS at the same time. The COTS milestones should be complete by March / April, although I don't know if that funding is rolling over from the prior year, since those goals were to be accomplished in the prior fiscal year.

If any vendor has an issue with the FAR contract, I'm sure NASA would be willing to place them on an unfunded SAA instead. That's something each vendor will have to weigh. Can they meet the requirements in NASA's RFP for a lower overall development cost and bring their product to market faster if they aren't burdened by NASA oversight ?

Will · « **Reply #46 on:** 09/20/2011 02:17 pm »

Quote from: MP99 on 09/20/2011 09:39 am

Quote from: joek on 09/19/2011 10:50 pm
Down-select to a single provider expected for Phase 2. From 148508-DRAFT-001-005 (pg 50):
edit: Multiple providers may still be in the future for Phase 2, budget available, per Robotbeat's post below.

If the down-select is at risk of going to one provider, it must make it harder for competitors to put their own skin in the game if they will be reliant on NASA business to recoup their investment.

cheers, Martin

I don't think so. Assuming equal ability to win the contract, it's the difference between a 50% chance of winning one flight a year or a 25% chance of winning two.

Ronsmytheiii · « **Reply #47 on:** 09/20/2011 03:05 pm »

WIll , i am going to have to question your math here. For a single provider and assuming the choice is between the four CCDev 2 recipients, then each company has a one in four chance of winning the single contract, or 25% which was correct above.

For two provider contract with seperate providers, the probability is not 50%. The first slot would be one in four, but the second slot would be one in three. Therefore an individual company would have a 58.33% chance of winning a commercial crew contract for a year in a dual sourced contract.

go4mars · « **Reply #48 on:** 09/20/2011 04:18 pm »

Quote from: joek on 09/20/2011 12:50 am

For any acquisition strategy developed for CCDev3, NASA is encouraged to consider the potential contributions of women-, minority- and veteran-owned firms.

Does African count as a minority? Elon's African. Gynne is a woman.

BeanEstimator · « **Reply #49 on:** 09/20/2011 05:36 pm »

Quote from: john smith 19 on 09/20/2011 11:48 am

EG No *detailed* cost data to be supplied to NASA (pity about this. It might be the *only* way the NAFCOM cost model values might be brought down a bit),

excuse the snip.

fwiw, nafcom is fine. contrary to what you've heard. those of us who actually know how to use the model can build perfectly good estimates (including for F9 and F9H - estimates you've never seen unfortunately, the ones you saw were um, how shall we say, political in nature). like any tool or model, the work falls to the analyst/user.

but your point is still valid. without cost data we are at a severe disadvantage. still, the FAR reporting standards for cost accounting are onerous. there is a much better way to report cost that doesn't require armies of rmo folks or an evm system that needs 3-5% of your total mission cost...but i digress. unfortunately the reporting is always looked at as an "all or nothing". and nasa will not be able to gain any insight into susbystem costs, or management costs...*sigh*

ok i now return you to a more substantive discussion. you'll have to excuse the lowly cost weenie in the crowd

Jose · « **Reply #50 on:** 09/20/2011 06:02 pm »

Quote from: BeanEstimator on 09/20/2011 05:36 pm

...there is a much better way to report cost that doesn't require armies of rmo folks or an evm system that needs 3-5% of your total mission cost...but i digress...

Now you're just teasing us...

Jason1701 · « **Reply #51 on:** 09/20/2011 06:11 pm »

Quote from: go4mars on 09/20/2011 04:18 pm

Does African count as a minority? Elon's African.

You made my day.

baldusi · « **Reply #52 on:** 09/20/2011 06:17 pm »

Quote from: Ronsmytheiii on 09/20/2011 03:05 pm

WIll , i am going to have to question your math here. For a single provider and assuming the choice is between the four CCDev 2 recipients, then each company has a one in four chance of winning the single contract, or 25% which was correct above.

For two provider contract with seperate providers, the probability is not 50%. The first slot would be one in four, but the second slot would be one in three. Therefore an individual company would have a 58.33% chance of winning a commercial crew contract for a year in a dual sourced contract.

If you assume first one in four and then one in three, that would be 0.25 + 0.75 * 0.33 = 49.75%.
But that only applies if you are first bidding for one, and then bidding for the second place. If it's simultaneous is 50% (academic, since we are talking about a 0.25%).

BrightLight · « **Reply #53 on:** 09/20/2011 06:55 pm »

Would economies of scale work better if the down selected vendors used only the Atlas V as opposed to one vendor using the Atlas V and the other - Falcon?

baldusi · « **Reply #54 on:** 09/20/2011 07:13 pm »

Quote from: BrightLight on 09/20/2011 06:55 pm

Would economies of scale work better if the down selected vendors used only the Atlas V as opposed to one vendor using the Atlas V and the other - Falcon?

Would sort of loose the LV redundancy. Technically, Boeing stated that they will be compatible with the Falcon 9. I think SNC and Blue Origin said something along that line. But I'm not sure. If redundancy would be an issue, I would sort of force that they demonstrate a dual LV capability. In fact, I would give the second launcher at least one launch with each craft, if both chosen vehicles use the same (probably Atlas V). Both Falcon 9 and Atlas V should be viable without that contract. But you have to demonstrate the interfaces and have at least an unmaned flight demonstration.

BrightLight · « **Reply #55 on:** 09/20/2011 07:23 pm »

Would sort of loose the LV redundancy.
So if Spacex does not get the down-select that leaves Atlas V, Liberty and Delta. But it looks like the Delta platform is not as viable for man rating and the status of Liberty is yet to be determined. Conversely if Spacex gets the down-select would dragon fly on Atlas? I would argue that redundancy might not be a priority - but we will have to wait and see!

joek · « **Reply #56 on:** 09/20/2011 07:59 pm »

From 148508-DRAFT-001-005 (pg 94):

Quote

L.26 ANTICIPATED BUDGET
Offerors should consider multiple awards and the anticipated budget when establishing milestone events, prices and completion dates. The anticipated budget available for multiple contract awards of the CCIDC, based on the FY2012 President’s Budget Request, is shown below:

CLIN 001- Base period - $1.61B
CLIN 002- IDIQ - $0.02B per contract award
CLIN 003- Options - $0.48B

Obviously the $1.61B ($850M/yr x 2) isn't happening, at least soon.

The contract line items appear to be constructed so that if funding increases, some Phase 2 work could be completed under Phase 1 options and help accelerate efforts or help multiple vendors progress further (even if they aren't selected for Phase 2). Without those options Phase 1 is range of the currently projected FY12-FY13 $500M/yr funding profile.
2012 Jul - Phase 1 awards.
2013 Oct - Phase 2 RFP.
2014 Apr - Phase 1 CLIN 001 complete (no later than).
2014 May - Phase 2 awards.
2014 Oct - Phase 1 CLIN 003 complete (no later than).

For reference:
CLIN 001 - Base FFP contract with 4 mandatory milestones and 1 optional milestone; vendors may propose additional milestones.
CLIN 002 - NASA-requested activities (IDIQ studies, analysis, etc. NTE $20M/contract).
CLIN 003 - Optional FFP extensions proposed by vendors for development testing and certification activities. Those activities would otherwise be part of Phase 2.

edit: clarify CLIN 003

R.Simko · « **Reply #57 on:** 09/20/2011 08:20 pm »

If Congress and NASA want true LEO HSF redundancy (of course that's a big if), then what makes the most sense to me, is to fund both CST-100 and Dragon. With financial incentive, I would think that NASA could get SpaceX to be willing to allow Dragon to be flown on Atlas, in addition to flying on Falcon. It is my understanding that CST-100 is being designed so that it can fly on either Atlas or Dragon (in addition to others).

This would make it so that if there is ever a problem with either capsule, then the other capsule can continue to fly (perhaps alternating) on the 2 available rockets. If there is ever a problem with one of the rockets, then the capsules can fly on the other rocket, until the problem is found.

I didn't include SLS/Orion (MPLV), because that is only as an optional back-up if commercial doesn't work out. SLS/Orion should be concentrating on BLEO. But if the absolute worst happens, it would also be available whenever it is completed.

What is the value of a truely redundant American HSF capability? It's time for Congress to step up and put America first. Yes, even before their local contractors and constituents'.

Yes I know, the budget. But to bring both of these systems on line would not cost that much. Congress would either have to earmark additional funds for this, or temporarily shift some funding to bring these two systems on line.

When America wins, we all win. If a few states say "me first", then we may all lose.

Edit-Word correction

peter-b · « **Reply #58 on:** 09/20/2011 08:27 pm »

Quote from: R.Simko on 09/20/2011 08:20 pm

If Congress and NASA want true LEO HSF redundancy (of course that's a big if), then what makes the most sense to me, is to fund both CST-100 and Dragon. With financial incentive, I would think that NASA could get SpaceX to be willing to allow Dragon to be flown on Atlas, in addition to flying on Falcon. It is my understanding that CST-100 is being designed so that it can fly on either Atlas or Dragon (in addition to others).

This would make it so that if there is ever a problem with either capsule, then the other capsule can continue to fly (perhaps alternating) on the 2 available rockets. If there is ever a problem with one of the rockets, then the capsules can fly on the other rocket, until the problem is found.

That sounds like such a sensible idea that I'm sure that there's not the tiniest of chances of it actually happening. I'm sure someone (Jim?) will be along presently to explain why.

baldusi · « **Reply #59 on:** 09/20/2011 08:46 pm »

Quote from: BrightLight on 09/20/2011 07:23 pm

Would sort of loose the LV redundancy.
So if Spacex does not get the down-select that leaves Atlas V, Liberty and Delta. But it looks like the Delta platform is not as viable for man rating and the status of Liberty is yet to be determined. Conversely if Spacex gets the down-select would dragon fly on Atlas? I would argue that redundancy might not be a priority - but we will have to wait and see!

Realistically, the only two man-ratable LV within the US industry are both Atlas V and Falcon 9. Delta could be done, but it would be expensive, and I highly doubt ULA would pay it for itself. It's all due to RS-68A limitations. But I understand that if you loose a bit the requirements, it wouldn't need main mods. The Liberty is a paper rocket, and the Ariane 5 core stage that's currently used has a different engine, tank and avionics than the one that was required at first to be man-ratable. But SpaceX has stated that they would be happy to fly an CST-100 on a Falcon 9.
So, barring any loosening of the man-rating requirements, I don't see any other cheap and realistic options than Atlas V and Falcon 9.
Now, if SpaceX is selected for a CRS 2 (from 2017 to 2020), they could offer the option of having a fully developed Crew Dragon, even one built and in storage, but only do with an IDIQ contract, since they could keep the Dragon line running on Cargo Dragon. In that arrangement, they could offer a "cheap" contract as a backup LV+craft, Lv or craft, with very little overhead. But the timing is interesting, since NASA would probably want to develop the human capsules first. Since all have stated that they can function as a robot capsule, it's quite probable that CRS 2 will have at least three (even four) fully working bidders. Dragon has the advantage of some unpressurized volume. But Cygnus could offer an unpressurized version easily. That would be one very interesting tender.