Author Topic: NASA Releases Draft RFP for CCtCap (i.e., Phase 2 of Certification)  (Read 77202 times)

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2922
  • Liked: 679
  • Likes Given: 364
For the MSFT-averse, attached are all the files unpacked from the pdf's in a single zip file.  The word files have been converted to pdf; excel docs are not converted.  Much of it is boilerplate, to be provided, or by reference to other documents (some of which are not public).  The most interesting in this package appear to be (in nominal order):
- 158768-SOL-001-001
- RFP NNK14467515R - CCtCap
- Attachment L-01, Statement of Objectives (SOO)- CCtCap
- Attachment J-02, Data Requirement Deliverables - CCtCap
- Attachment J-03, Appendix A, Milestone Acceptance Criteria and Payment Schedule - CCtCap

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2922
  • Liked: 679
  • Likes Given: 364
My first response was...How many people took how long to produce this monstrosity. Is NASA placing too many administrative and bureaucratic layers on what is supposed to be a more efficient and less costly endeavor?

But I'm not sure that's fair. This is a rather complex undertaking.

So can somebody in the know, give an intelligent assessment as to whether the way in which this RFP was written, can fulfill the intended purpose of the program? I have my opinions but I'd just assume get some in-the-trenches real world thoughts on it first. (or not, my eyes started to bleed after page 93)

Not sure why the surprise or consternation.  The draft RFP issued in July (excluding attachments) was 161 pages; this one is 168 pages.  While I have not completed comparing the two, the primary differences appear to be more clarification, with some possible substantive changes related to cargo and post-certification missions.  Would appreciate it if if anyone else has the time to compare the draft and this version and report on substantive changes.

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2922
  • Liked: 679
  • Likes Given: 364
That I agree with. It's FAR this time, with all it's associated red-tape and other bureaucratic obstacles. This is not exactly helping to get things speeding along. Neither is the lack of sufficient budget.
Well, we all have been afraid of that happening for a while...

Nonsense.  There are many flavors of FAR, some with more red tape than others.  In any case, for NASA to acquire crew transportation services, they must execute an acquisition contract (that's the "A" in "FAR").  The rules of such acquisitions are governed by law and were a given from day zero.

Offline mlindner

  • Software Engineer
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1957
  • Space Capitalist
  • Silicon Valley, CA -- previously in Ann Arbor, MI
  • Liked: 551
  • Likes Given: 228
CCkneeCap.  :'(

(snark willfully stolen from Jeff Foust via Twitter)


Care to elaborate why this should be "CCkneeCap"?

Jeff was saying to watch out for it, not that this is, yet.

Myself, I think a 168 page RFP is just the beginning of the "just as good as an SAA" promise.



That I agree with. It's FAR this time, with all it's associated red-tape and other bureaucratic obstacles. This is not exactly helping to get things speeding along. Neither is the lack of sufficient budget.

Where's the quote where Elon says "We might not bid on it."

If it gets that bad, I hope he doesn't.

Edit: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/nasa/elon-musk-spacex-could-dump-nasa-6530487

Edit2: To clarify: I don't mean I don't want commercial crew to succeed. I just mean that I value SpaceX independence and approach to spaceflight more than I value the success of commercial crew.
« Last Edit: 11/30/2013 12:24 AM by mlindner »
Internal combustion engine in space. It's just a Bad Idea.TM - Robotbeat

Online MP99

Did CCiCap / CCDev include the same clauses re NASA retaining ownership of any inventions unless reported, detailed & claimed, plus NASA having automatic licence (that they can assign to other contractors) to anything claimed?

Cheers, Martin

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9652
  • Liked: 1373
  • Likes Given: 869
Quote from: Marcia Smith
NASA asks: under FAA law/regs, are NASA astronauts prohibited frm performing op tasks on cmrcl spflts. FAA answers:
https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/406781614274777089

The answer is essentially, no. See the full reply, here:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-12-02/html/2013-28405.htm
« Last Edit: 11/30/2013 01:07 PM by yg1968 »

Offline Jcc

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 876
  • Liked: 202
  • Likes Given: 97
I would think that a publicly held company like Boeing or SNC would be more resistant to signing on to the liability clauses in the RFP than a privately held company (SpaceX) would be, or else they would price in the liability at a higher rate, making themselves less competitive.

 .

Offline Lurker Steve

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1420
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 9
I would think that a publicly held company like Boeing or SNC would be more resistant to signing on to the liability clauses in the RFP than a privately held company (SpaceX) would be, or else they would price in the liability at a higher rate, making themselves less competitive.

 .

I don't know what liability cause you are talking about, but I don't see Boeing being resistant. They've been sued before and paid their fines. I assume they just consider it one of the costs of doing business. That said, they also have plenty of lawyers to defend themselves.

I would think SpaceX might actually be a little more careful in this area, since their corporation doesn't have the same cash reserves that allow them to handle a large penalty.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9652
  • Liked: 1373
  • Likes Given: 869
The Pre-Proposal Conference was today. The slides are attached to this post:

Quote
NASA’s Commercial Crew Program (CCP) will host a Pre-Proposal Conference on December 4, 2013. This conference will be held at the Press Site News Facility located at Kennedy Space Center, Florida. The purpose of the conference is to provide an overview of the recently released RFP, NNK14467515R, for the CCtCap contract. This briefing will also highlight significant changes since release of the draft RFP. Documents related to this briefing are available here:

http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/page.cfm?ID=50&CFID=1305926&CFTOKEN=ab9ef9422df9a65b-43450545-C0DE-B5DD-140E09D8D64C3B0B
« Last Edit: 12/08/2013 05:46 PM by yg1968 »

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8636
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2683
  • Likes Given: 6984
The Pre-Proposal Conference was today. The slides are attached to this post:

Quote
NASA’s Commercial Crew Program (CCP) will host a Pre-Proposal Conference on December 4, 2013. This conference will be held at the Press Site News Facility located at Kennedy Space Center, Florida. The purpose of the conference is to provide an overview of the recently released RFP, NNK14467515R, for the CCtCap contract. This briefing will also highlight significant changes since release of the draft RFP. Documents related to this briefing are available here:
Thanks yg! :)
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9652
  • Liked: 1373
  • Likes Given: 869
The most noticeable change (on slide 18) is that post-certification missions can now be awarded up until 5 years from the date that a CCtCap contract is signed. This should be around August 2019 if CCtCap is awarded in August (it was previously up until December 31st 2020 in the draft RFP).

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9652
  • Liked: 1373
  • Likes Given: 869
The FAA-NASA Partnership presentation is interesting and worth reading.

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2922
  • Liked: 679
  • Likes Given: 364
Thanks again yg.  A few other bits of note:
1. Mission Suitability Evaluation adds "Inherent Capabilities in excess of NASA requirements ..."
2. Pricing Evaluation adds "All other Government Furnished Property and Services (outside of CCtCap) will be evaluated to determine whether a competitive advantage exists ..."
3. Waiver of requirement for certified cost data for contractor but not subcontractors (seems odd?).
4. Cargo has been eliminated (was optional CLIN in draft RFP).
5. A number of clarifications concerning FAA regulations:
a) FAA license not required for test flights, but required for post-certification missions.
b) Crew is an employee of the licensee; NASA astronauts would be spaceflight participants.  Good discussion of the ruling here.

Offline manboy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2082
  • Texas, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 127
  • Likes Given: 539
The Pre-Proposal Conference was today. The slides are attached to this post:

Quote
NASA’s Commercial Crew Program (CCP) will host a Pre-Proposal Conference on December 4, 2013. This conference will be held at the Press Site News Facility located at Kennedy Space Center, Florida. The purpose of the conference is to provide an overview of the recently released RFP, NNK14467515R, for the CCtCap contract. This briefing will also highlight significant changes since release of the draft RFP. Documents related to this briefing are available here:
Thanks.
"Cheese has been sent into space before. But the same cheese has never been sent into space twice." - StephenB

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1440
  • Liked: 387
  • Likes Given: 462
Thanks again yg.  A few other bits of note:
1. Mission Suitability Evaluation adds "Inherent Capabilities in excess of NASA requirements ..."

4. Cargo has been eliminated (was optional CLIN in draft RFP).


What will they be assessing as "inherent capabilities" ? Re-boost?


Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2922
  • Liked: 679
  • Likes Given: 364
Thanks again yg.  A few other bits of note:
1. Mission Suitability Evaluation adds "Inherent Capabilities in excess of NASA requirements ..."
What will they be assessing as "inherent capabilities" ? Re-boost?

Could be anything.  The significance is that it provides NASA more latitude in the evaluation, and all other things being equal, could tilt the balance towards an offering that provides more than NASA requires.  May seem like a no-brainer, but contracts have been contested and lost because of the lack of such verbiage in the RFP.

Offline dchill

  • Member
  • Posts: 88
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 0
I would think that a publicly held company like Boeing or SNC would be more resistant to signing on to the liability clauses in the RFP than a privately held company (SpaceX) would be, or else they would price in the liability at a higher rate, making themselves less competitive.

Since when has SNC been a publicly held company? (http://www.sncorp.com/about_snc.php)

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9652
  • Liked: 1373
  • Likes Given: 869

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9652
  • Liked: 1373
  • Likes Given: 869
Slide 11 of this presentation is interesting:
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/20140414_HEOC_CommercialCrew.pdf

It mentions that CCtCap will be a:
Quote from: Kathy Lueders
Phased acquisition using competitive down-selection procedures

P.S. See this link on what that generally implies:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/procurement/regs/5217-25.htm

Quote
1852.217-71 Phased Acquisition Using Down-Selection Procedures.

  As prescribed in 1817.7302(a), insert the following clause:

PHASED ACQUISITION USING DOWN-SELECTION PROCEDURES

(NOVEMBER 2011)

  (a) This solicitation is for the acquisition of ______ [insert Program title].  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.

  (b) Phase 1 is for the _____ [insert purpose of phase].  Phase 2 is for _____ [insert general Phase 2 goals].

  (c) The competition for Phase 2 will be based on the results of Phase 1, and the award criteria for Phase 2 will include successful completion of Phase 1 requirements.

  (d) NASA will issue a separate, formal solicitation for Phase 2 that will include all information required for preparation of proposals, including the final evaluation factors.

  (e) Phase 2 will be synopsized in the Governmentwide Point of Entry (GPE) in accordance with FAR 5.201 and 5.203 unless one of the exceptions in FAR 5.202 applies.  Notwithstanding NASA's expectation that only the Phase 1 contractors will be capable of successfully competing for Phase 2, all proposals will be considered.  Any other responsible source may indicate its desire to submit a proposal by responding to the Phase 2 synopsis, and NASA will provide that source a solicitation.

  (f) To be considered for Phase 2 award, offerors must demonstrate a design maturity equivalent to that of the Phase 1 contractors.  This demonstration shall include the following Phase 1 deliverables upon which Phase 2 award will be based:  _____ [insert the specific Phase 1 deliverables].  Failure to fully and completely demonstrate the appropriate level of design maturity may render the proposal unacceptable with no further consideration for contract award.

  (g)  The following draft Phase 2 evaluation factors are provided for your information.  Please note that these evaluation factors are not final, and NASA reserves the right to change them at any time up to and including the date upon which Phase 2 proposals are solicited.

   [Insert draft Phase 2 evaluation factors (and subfactors, if available), including demonstration of successful completion of Phase 1 requirements.]

  (h) Although NASA will request Phase 2 proposals from Phase 1 contractors, submission of the Phase 2 proposal is not a requirement of the Phase 1 contract.  Accordingly, the costs of preparing these proposals shall not be a direct charge to the Phase 1 contract or any other Government contract.

  (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.  [Insert dates below].

   Phase 1 award -
   Phase 2 synopsis -
   Phase 2 proposal requested -
   Phase 2 proposal receipt -
   Phase 2 award -
« Last Edit: 04/22/2014 06:00 PM by yg1968 »

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10313
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 701
  • Likes Given: 728
It would be interesting if SpaceX could use a crewed Dragon variant for the Feb 2015 CRS delivery of the new docking mech.
That's how ATLAS was going to be installed.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/nasa-develops-new-docking-system-for-constellation-220598/

RePosting part of this interesting info before it gets lost....

"The first two manned Orion crew exploration vehicle flights to the International Space Station, scheduled from September 2015, will deliver a new NASA-developed docking adaptor.

These will be fitted to the two ISS ports the Space Shuttle currently uses to dock with the station, and which from 2015 will be used by CEV.

Fitted to the ISS's Russia-designed Androgynous Peripheral Attach System, the new APAS To Low Impact Docking System Adaptor System, or ATLAS, will see Orion, which uses NASA's LIDS, dock with ATLAS' LIDS interface.

It would resolve the issue of how Orion docks with the ISS's APAS from CEV's expected initial operating capability date of September 2015, while in Moon missions from 2020 it will use LIDS to dock with NASA's Altair Lunar Lander"
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. ~ by Thomas Alva Edison

Tags: