Quote from: BrightLight on 12/22/2012 03:12 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 12/22/2012 02:34 pmHere are the highlights from the CPC selection statement. -NASA only received proposals for CPC from Boeing, SNC and SpaceX.-Boeing, SNC and SpaceX received ratings of acceptable for Technical Acceptability.-Boeing, SNC and SpaceX received ratings of reasonable for Price.-Boeing and SpaceX got high level of confidence ratings for Past Performance. -SNC got a moderate level of confidence rating for Past Performance. -On SNC, Gerst says that he "concluded that although some of SNC's past performance was in system-level work and more was in element-level work, it was pertinent to the CPC requirements and was effectively performed. The rating of moderate for SNC was appropriate and directly supported by the findings." -See pages 5 and 8 of the CPC Selection Statement for the discussion on Past Performance for each company. I don't understand the term moderate in this context, did SNC perform poorly in documenting there analysis?There have been issues during CCDEv2.
Quote from: yg1968 on 12/22/2012 02:34 pmHere are the highlights from the CPC selection statement. -NASA only received proposals for CPC from Boeing, SNC and SpaceX.-Boeing, SNC and SpaceX received ratings of acceptable for Technical Acceptability.-Boeing, SNC and SpaceX received ratings of reasonable for Price.-Boeing and SpaceX got high level of confidence ratings for Past Performance. -SNC got a moderate level of confidence rating for Past Performance. -On SNC, Gerst says that he "concluded that although some of SNC's past performance was in system-level work and more was in element-level work, it was pertinent to the CPC requirements and was effectively performed. The rating of moderate for SNC was appropriate and directly supported by the findings." -See pages 5 and 8 of the CPC Selection Statement for the discussion on Past Performance for each company. I don't understand the term moderate in this context, did SNC perform poorly in documenting there analysis?
Here are the highlights from the CPC selection statement. -NASA only received proposals for CPC from Boeing, SNC and SpaceX.-Boeing, SNC and SpaceX received ratings of acceptable for Technical Acceptability.-Boeing, SNC and SpaceX received ratings of reasonable for Price.-Boeing and SpaceX got high level of confidence ratings for Past Performance. -SNC got a moderate level of confidence rating for Past Performance. -On SNC, Gerst says that he "concluded that although some of SNC's past performance was in system-level work and more was in element-level work, it was pertinent to the CPC requirements and was effectively performed. The rating of moderate for SNC was appropriate and directly supported by the findings." -See pages 5 and 8 of the CPC Selection Statement for the discussion on Past Performance for each company.
My hope for this process is that during the CPC the companies do not sacrifice the cost of their design for NASA paperwork. If the choice comes down to abiding by NASA's overly strict rules and increasing cost vs keeping a cheap design and giving up on the contract, I hope the companies take the latter.
Quote from: mlindner on 01/26/2013 05:20 pmMy hope for this process is that during the CPC the companies do not sacrifice the cost of their design for NASA paperwork. If the choice comes down to abiding by NASA's overly strict rules and increasing cost vs keeping a cheap design and giving up on the contract, I hope the companies take the latter.And then there won't be anybody producing spacecraft
If the choice comes down to abiding by NASA's overly strict rules
This was the part of commercial crew that I have been most worried about regardless of the technical capabilities of the individual companies. I know Elon Musk stated that if CCiCap was not under SAA then he said "We may not bid on it," so we will see what happens. If the dialogue is two-way then SpaceX may be able to combat the restrictions.
Quote from: Jim on 01/26/2013 05:30 pmQuote from: mlindner on 01/26/2013 05:20 pmMy hope for this process is that during the CPC the companies do not sacrifice the cost of their design for NASA paperwork. If the choice comes down to abiding by NASA's overly strict rules and increasing cost vs keeping a cheap design and giving up on the contract, I hope the companies take the latter.And then there won't be anybody producing spacecraftWhile unfortunate I think that is preferable to the U.S. repeating the path of overly expensive vehicles that prevent innovation. SpaceX will still have their Falcon 9/H launch vehicles and revenue sources and while it will delay commercial crew flight, it will not prevent it. I doubt Boeing will make that choice as they are a traditional government contractor so they would continue forward regardless of an SAA or not. I'm not very familiar with SNC though.
I know Elon Musk stated that if CCiCap was not under SAA then he said "We may not bid on it," so we will see what happens. If the dialogue is two-way then SpaceX may be able to combat the restrictions.
Again, Spacex still isn't a given. It is moving towards a traditional gov contractor.
Quote from: Jim on 01/29/2013 11:29 pm Again, Spacex still isn't a given. It is moving towards a traditional gov contractor. I am not sure what you mean by this sentence. Do you mean to say that SpaceX is becoming a traditional government contractor?
It has the same contracts as ULA.
Quote from: Jim on 01/29/2013 11:50 pmIt has the same contracts as ULA.That's painting with a very broad brush. There are as many differences as similarities (at least at this time). E.g., SpaceX has CRS and ULA does not; ULA has ELC and SpaceX does not.
Spacex had COTS. Besides, all of ULA's contracts are fixed price.
Also, ULA ELC contract is cost-plus not fixed price, and fixed price does not necessarily mean competitive (e.g., DoD buys may be fixed price, but have not been competitive).
In March 2005, DOD revised the EELV acquisition strategy to reflect the changes in the commercial market and the new role of the government as the primary EELV customer. This revised strategy provided two contracts each—Launch Capability and Launch Services—to Boeing and Lockheed Martin, the two launch service providers. The EELV Launch Capability cost-plus award fee contract was primarily for launch infrastructure (such as launch pads and ranges) and labor, while the EELV Launch Services firm-fixed price contract with a mission success incentive provision, was for launch services, including vehicle production.
When Spacex gets an EELV contract, they will also get an ELS type contract.
Quote from: Jim on 01/30/2013 02:27 pmWhen Spacex gets an EELV contract, they will also get an ELS type contract.Will it also get a (cost-plus) ELC contract for its fixed costs?
Quote from: yg1968 on 01/30/2013 02:29 pmQuote from: Jim on 01/30/2013 02:27 pmWhen Spacex gets an EELV contract, they will also get an ELS type contract.Will it also get a (cost-plus) ELC contract for its fixed costs?I meant ELC. The USAF asks for a lot of different things
We'll see. If they do it will be a case of the pot calling the kettle black considering how much Elon has ranted against cost-plus contracts. Elon is very big on PR so I somehow doubt that he would accept such a contract.
