NASA Releases Draft RFP for CCtCap (i.e., Phase 2 of Certification)

[AnalogMan]

Here is the presentation given at Thursday's pre-solicitation conference (79 pages):

http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/document_file_get.cfm?docid=677

[yg1968]

Here is the presentation given at Thursday's pre-solicitation conference (79 pages):

http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/document_file_get.cfm?docid=677

Page 16 of the presentation has a timeline for new entrants after the original CCtCap is awarded. I am not sure what that is about. 

[yg1968]

Here is the presentation given at Thursday's pre-solicitation conference (79 pages):

http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/document_file_get.cfm?docid=677

See also this link to the printable version of the presentation. Slide 19 is clearer in this version of the presentation.
http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/document_file_get.cfm?docid=678

I have attached both versions to this post.

[joek]

Here is the presentation given at Thursday's pre-solicitation conference (79 pages):

http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/document_file_get.cfm?docid=677

Page 16 of the presentation has a timeline for new entrants after the original CCtCap is awarded. I am not sure what that is about. 

Explained in the draft RFP:

(a) The purpose of this clause is to notify the contractor that NASA may conduct a subsequent competition due to the loss of an existing CTS provider or if there are additional future NASA requirements for certified crew transportation. NASA will determine if these conditions are met prior to synopsizing and conducting a New Entrant competition. New entrants may compete for all task orders under this contract.

(b) The Government reserves the right to issue a solicitation in the future to seek an additional source(s) for the same or similar efforts/services.

[A_M_Swallow]

Here is the presentation given at Thursday's pre-solicitation conference (79 pages):

http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/document_file_get.cfm?docid=677

Page 16 of the presentation has a timeline for new entrants after the original CCtCap is awarded. I am not sure what that is about. 

Allows bids from Blue Origin when it has flown?

[joek]

Allows bids from Blue Origin when it has flown?

Or anyone else who does not receive a Phase 2 award--assuming NASA deems it necessary per the draft RFP.  Presumably that would follow the same pattern: solicitation, evaluation and selection (as shown that's the SEB or "source evaluation board" part of the timeline).

[yg1968]

NASA article on the first day of the conference:
http://www.nasa.gov/content/commercial-crew-looks-forward-to-future-flights/#.Ufs2W5JJ79p

[Lurker Steve]

I think the Post Certification Missions (PCMs) may tend to make these contracts look more expensive than they need to be. Those PCMs aren't going to be cheap, but it they are funded from the same ISS operations budget as the current Russian ISS ferry missions instead of the CTS budget, then things don't look quite as bad. The CCtCap office should only need to pay for initial certification, then follow-on flights can be booked thru operations.

[yg1968]

Government Property
The Government will make available a total of 4 NASA Docking System Block 1 units on a no charge-for-use basis for performance of work under this contract. If there are multiple contract awards, the available units will be equitably distributed, if necessary. The first flight unit will be available February, 2016. Within the proposal, the Offeror shall describe their approach to enable docking with the ISS. The options include the following:
      1. Government will provide NDS flight hardware units (limited to the noted four) as Government Furnished Property.
       2. Government will provide NDS Engineering as Government Furnished Data for Industry to build NDS. The preliminary build-to-print package available in November, 2014 and final build-to-print package available by June, 2016.”
        3. Contractor designs and builds unique docking system that is compatible with SSP 50808 requirements. The Government furnishes no hardware, data, or services. (See dRFP Clauses G.4, G.5, G.6, G.7, H.14; Provisions L.20-1-TA01, and M.2-TA01)

Can these options be combined?

My guess is that they can. It seems to me that option 1 and 2 complement each other. Any thoughts on this?

[joek]

Government Property
The Government will make available a total of 4 NASA Docking System Block 1 units on a no charge-for-use basis for performance of work under this contract. If there are multiple contract awards, the available units will be equitably distributed, if necessary. The first flight unit will be available February, 2016. Within the proposal, the Offeror shall describe their approach to enable docking with the ISS. The options include the following:
      1. Government will provide NDS flight hardware units (limited to the noted four) as Government Furnished Property.
      2. Government will provide NDS Engineering as Government Furnished Data for Industry to build NDS. The preliminary build-to-print package available in November, 2014 and final build-to-print package available by June, 2016.”
      3. Contractor designs and builds unique docking system that is compatible with SSP 50808 requirements. The Government furnishes no hardware, data, or services. (See dRFP Clauses G.4, G.5, G.6, G.7, H.14; Provisions L.20-1-TA01, and M.2-TA01)

Can these options be combined?
My guess is that they can. It seems to me that option 1 and 2 complement each other. Any thoughts on this?

Agree, but would not exclude option (3).  Option (1) provides for only four units.  There is no way to meet potential post-certification mission demands (up to six units) without options (2) or (3).  Given that each bidder will not know exactly how many post-certification missions they will be awarded*, they can not depend solely on option (1).

* edit: beyond the nominal minimimum of two and up to six.

[joek]

I think the Post Certification Missions (PCMs) may tend to make these contracts look more expensive than they need to be. Those PCMs aren't going to be cheap, but it they are funded from the same ISS operations budget as the current Russian ISS ferry missions instead of the CTS budget, then things don't look quite as bad. The CCtCap office should only need to pay for initial certification, then follow-on flights can be booked thru operations.

Nominally agree, but I think your concerns are misplaced...

There are a nominal minimum of two PCM missions per award.  However, they are IDIQ, so while the nominal "guaranteed minimum" value of the contract includes them, whether NASA actually buys them is subject to a host of caveats (same as for CRS).  What program budget or office the costs for those missions are charged to is a separate matter.

IMHO part of the purpose for requiring offeror's to provide fixed-firm-price for PCM is so that NASA can make an informed decision as to operational cost--not simply certification--and ensure that bidders are not low-balling or shifting costs (per the "balanced pricing" requirement).

Kudos to the mavens at NASA.  Given the constraints, this draft RFP is a great first step.

[erioladastra]

I think the Post Certification Missions (PCMs) may tend to make these contracts look more expensive than they need to be. Those PCMs aren't going to be cheap, but it they are funded from the same ISS operations budget as the current Russian ISS ferry missions instead of the CTS budget, then things don't look quite as bad. The CCtCap office should only need to pay for initial certification, then follow-on flights can be booked thru operations.

it is intended to provide some stability and long term planning for the companies.

[erioladastra]

Here is the presentation given at Thursday's pre-solicitation conference (79 pages):

http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/document_file_get.cfm?docid=677

Page 16 of the presentation has a timeline for new entrants after the original CCtCap is awarded. I am not sure what that is about. 

Allows bids from Blue Origin when it has flown?

Theoretically this is a fully open process meaning anyone can bid.  Blue Origin can as well.  In practice, if you have not been participating in CCiCAP and CPC it is unlikely you can present the maturity needed for the next phase.  But this leaves the door open.  It is not an on ramp down the road for a company.  So either BO has to demo that it is within reach of 2017 and the other requirements or else it will be out.  Unlikely they can do that.  SNC will be hard pressed to also show it but they have a better shot.

[erioladastra]

If money was the issue, then why didn't the extra money added to the COTS program get SpaceX to the ISS sooner ? Perhaps having the assured CRS contract (and the pre-payments for future flights) actually reduced the pressure on SpaceX to deliver the product on schedule.

I agree, which is entirely my point. SpaceX is going as fast as NASA will allow, without NASA in the way we'd see what pure motivation can produce. I've been criticized for being the only person to think SpaceX is going too slow - that's a half truth, I just think they could go faster. I think they think so too.

Be careful what you wish for. They've only had two revenue producing flights (and those part of a larger contract) and have drastically increased workforce and production capability to meet the manifest demands in the past year. The money needs to come from somewhere.

The idea that NASA is slowing them down is nonsense. If they wanted to accelerate ahead of CCiCap milestones there is nothing holding them back. They are going as fast as funding and development permit.

Actually, NASA has been slowing things down but mainly for a bureaucracy point of view: taking forever to release documents, changing NDS designs, not engaging in certain areas...  and in general by spreading resources over 3 partners.

[yg1968]

One thing that isn't clear from the draft RFP is whether NASA could decide not to exercise any post-certification missions. I get the impression that NASA could decide not to exercise any post-certification-mission but that is not really their intent. If NASA decides to exercise some post-certification missions, they must exercise at least two missions per contractor unless there is extraordinary circumstances preventing from doing so. But I find the documentation very vague on this point.

Any thoughts on this?

[yg1968]

Here is a presentation given by Phil McAlister at the NAC:
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/CSC_CSDStatus_July2013.pdf

[joek]

One thing that isn't clear from the draft RFP is whether NASA could decide not to exercise any post-certification missions. I get the impression that NASA could decide not to exercise any post-certification-mission but that is not really their intent. If NASA decides to exercise some post-certification missions, they must exercise at least two missions per contractor unless there is extraordinary circumstances preventing from doing so. But I find the documentation very vague on this point.

Assuming everything goes nominally, NASA is obliged* to purchase the "guaranteed minimum" two post-certification missions per CCtCap award.  Any beyond that minimum up to the maximum of six are at NASA's discretion.  The details are in the referenced FAR provisions for indefinite delivery indefinite quantity (IDIQ).


*edit: Subject to all of the typical caveats.

[Lurker Steve]

One thing that isn't clear from the draft RFP is whether NASA could decide not to exercise any post-certification missions. I get the impression that NASA could decide not to exercise any post-certification-mission but that is not really their intent. If NASA decides to exercise some post-certification missions, they must exercise at least two missions per contractor unless there is extraordinary circumstances preventing from doing so. But I find the documentation very vague on this point.

If each vendor gets 2 PCMs, then either the crew rotations will be a lot shorter (no more 6 month missions), or the CTS contracts might not start until 2020. Given a 3 yr lag between the certification phase and the official production phase, I wonder if it's possible to keep the pricing structure the same.


Assuming everything goes nominally, NASA is obliged* to purchase the "guaranteed minimum" two post-certification missions per CCtCap award.  Any beyond that minimum up to the maximum of six are at NASA's discretion.  The details are in the referenced FAR provisions for indefinite delivery indefinite quantity (IDIQ).


*edit: Subject to all of the typical caveats.

[JohnFornaro]

I would disagree. The heart of the capsule is the pressure vessel, and that is the same. 80% of the reaction thrusters are the same.

The pressure vessel is just 1 line item out of thousands of components.

It might not even be exactly the same, since it needs to interface to a NDS hatch instead of the CBM. Different size openings and interfaces.

And not to mention that there is all new software to validate, again...

Of those thousands of components, the pressure vessel is the largest.  So it's not just about being "1 line item".

For example, the thrusters, at least the Draco-ish ones, would be exactly the same.  What about the prop tanks?

Indeed the interface may be different, but the larger point is that there is much commonality between the two capsules.  There is also the commonality of the personell in the capsule team; they are working cooperatively.

Just tryin' to keep perspective, rather than the typical "either-or" approach.

[Lurker Steve]

I would disagree. The heart of the capsule is the pressure vessel, and that is the same. 80% of the reaction thrusters are the same.

The pressure vessel is just 1 line item out of thousands of components.

It might not even be exactly the same, since it needs to interface to a NDS hatch instead of the CBM. Different size openings and interfaces.

And not to mention that there is all new software to validate, again...

Of those thousands of components, the pressure vessel is the largest.  So it's not just about being "1 line item".

For example, the thrusters, at least the Draco-ish ones, would be exactly the same.  What about the prop tanks?

Indeed the interface may be different, but the larger point is that there is much commonality between the two capsules.  There is also the commonality of the personell in the capsule team; they are working cooperatively.

Just tryin' to keep perspective, rather than the typical "either-or" approach.

OK, here you go.

Even if the pressure vessel is the same shape, it might have new and or different openings and weldments. So, your largest piece has changed.

Draco thrusters have been either replaced or augmented with "Super-Duper" versions.

Propellant tanks are larger, in order to feed the new Super Duper thrusters.

The solar arrays are now gone, replaced by an increased number of lithium batteries. The capsule will not be able to charge these batteries by itself, so it will be dependent on the space station providing power via the new NDS interface.

That "veteran" capsule team of 3 complete missions will need to learn a set of procedures for working via a crewed capsule vs a cargo capsule. The set of actions for when things go wrong are completely different between crew and cargo missions.


Fortunately, the second largest component (by size) is most likely completely unchanged. The Pica-X heat shield remains the same.