Commercial Crew - Discussion Thread 1

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Let's say the price rating was 4 for SpaceX, 3 for SNC, and 2 for Boeing and the price confidence rating was 4 for Boeing, 3 for SpaceX, and 2 for SNC.  Usually these two are multiplied together to get the ranking: SpaceX 12, Boeing 8, and SNC 6. So if this was close to the actual numbers used the ranking was the reason why SNC ended up on the bottom.  While the price rating is an objective rating the confidence level in the price is an opinion/subjective rating.

The source selection review of proposals is supposed to be blind in that the proposers name is replace by a number in all documents being reviewed.  This works fine if the reviewers have no past experience with the proposed products.  But since the proposed products are well known to the reviewers the source selection confidence rating will be tainted by the opinions on the proposer rather than the proposal in front of them.  If this tainting of the confidence rating of both the price and technical can be shown to have occurred by the GAO review then the awardee relative rankings of the proposals could be very different than the NASA one in which one or both (not likely to have both) awards are overturned and an new first and second place is designated resulting in a contract cancelation and a new contract award.

Past performance is typically a legitimate factor in evaluating proposals. And in this case there is specific mention of past performance in the Gerstenmaier memo cited by Andy Pasztor in the WSJ:

"Based on Boeing's performance on a preliminary contract, NASA concluded it had "very high confidence" in that company's likelihood of delivering what it promised—the highest ranking possible."

"In summary, Mr. Gerstenmaier decided that "Boeing's superior proposal, with regard to [the company's] technical and management approach and its past performance," was worth the higher price."

Each rating is done by a separate group and has no contact with each other to avoid cross contamination of rating opinions. So the past performance group have no contact with the other raters. Also past performance rating is confidence input to the confidence levels generated on price and technical.

So your argument that because past performance is a rating element that everyone does their rating colored by past performance is wrong.

[kerlc]

I don't know whether this has been posted elsewhere already, but I saw this article on spaceflight now.

http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1410/01cctcapprotest/#.VC2JPRbcNzg

[nadreck]

The one point from that article (which, in my not so humble opinion is obviously biased and which obviously cherry picked what to quote based on justifying its headline and slant) that detracts from it's headline and slant is that Boeing and SpaceX were separated by 6% on the score. Does the relatively minor difference in score justify a 50% higher price tag. Or is price part of that score? We need more than just cherry picked and leaked statements to determine this fully, but the articles credibility is question by that inconsistency of the 6% difference - say the difference between a 3.9 and a 3.6 grade point average or less than a quarter of a star in a 5 star rating system.

So what was SNC's score 1 or 2% higher or lower than SpaceX, certainly no more than 6% less than SpaceX if their rhetoric in challenging the decision has any credibility.

[MP99]

Scores are out of 1000. If cost is equivalent to the other two factors, then it is 500/1000, and the other two are 250/1000.

Assume that costs are scored:-
SpaceX: 300
SNC: 250
Boeing: 200

The SFN article says "SNC’s proposal also achieved mission suitability scores comparable to the other two proposals.", so give them all the same arbitrary score. (Doesn't make any difference if they're all zero, or all 250).

SpaceX: 200
SNC: 200
Boeing: 200

SNC claim "In fact, out of a possible 1,000 total points, the highest ranked and lowest ranked offerors were separated by a minor amount of total points and other factors were equally comparable."

To get nearly identical scores (let's assume SNC scored 25/1000 less, and the other two identically), the past performance scores will need to mirror the differences in cost scores. At one extreme, you'd end up with:-

SpaceX: 150
SNC: 175
Boeing: 250

On the other extreme, you'd end up with:-
SpaceX: 0
SNC: 25
Boeing: 100

Neither of these extremes is really reasonable, and the takeaway is that SpaceX & SNC could have been quite close on past performance, but neither really encouraging any particular confidence (per Pasztor's article, but also implied by SNC's press release). So NASA chose one they they could rely on, and the best scoring of the "well, they might get the job done" options.

What will be interesting to watch, is how funding is allocated if Congress appropriates a shortfall from the requested burn rates. Assuming SpaceX is lower on dev costs, do they fully fund SpaceX and pay Boeing the rest of whatever is appropriated? Or fully fund Boeing (as the safe bet), and stretch out SpaceX's development? Or reduce both pro-rata?

cheers, Martin

[Lars-J]

Just release the darn selection document already, NASA. It is already starting to leak. The reluctance to do so isn't exactly giving a favorable impression.

[Kabloona]

So your argument that because past performance is a rating element that everyone does their rating colored by past performance is wrong.

Not what I said at all. Merely observed that past performance is a legitimate evaluation factor, contrary to what I thought you were saying. Apologies if I misunderstood your post.

So we agree that past performance is a legitimate factor, when appropriately applied, in part of the evaluation. Moving on...

[erioladastra]

{snip}
Of course, past experience with Boeing being "responsive" can't be counted on here, since their past experience of Boeing is on cost-plus contracts.  This is firm fixed price.  If NASA says, "We're not sure we like this cheap thing, do this expensive thing instead." the past answer was, "Sure, it's your dime." now it'll be, "You want to spend Boeing's money?"  It's not going to go the same way, and extra fat in the contract isn't going to change that, because with a firm fixed price, every dollar they don't spend is profit for them.
{snip}

Worse this is a fixed time contract.  Anything that may delay the launch date is going to receive a nasty reception from Boeing's management.  When the managers realise that say changing the shade of blue on the NASA symbol can expose the company to public ridicule they will get awkward.  It is not so much the minutes needed to buy the paint but the week the engineers on the critical path will need to write the report replying to the change request.

I don't think that is correct.  the contract is fixed in price and specifies what needs to be delivered.  I think 2017 is a "goal" (NASA has been very careful about that).  I don't think there is any fixed time thing.  However, everyone wants to reach 2017 and of course I am sure both SpaceX and Boeing want to be first for bragging rights.  A more realistic issue is when NASA changes requirements...something they are already doing and will continue to do so.

[A_M_Swallow]

{snip}
Of course, past experience with Boeing being "responsive" can't be counted on here, since their past experience of Boeing is on cost-plus contracts.  This is firm fixed price.  If NASA says, "We're not sure we like this cheap thing, do this expensive thing instead." the past answer was, "Sure, it's your dime." now it'll be, "You want to spend Boeing's money?"  It's not going to go the same way, and extra fat in the contract isn't going to change that, because with a firm fixed price, every dollar they don't spend is profit for them.
{snip}

Worse this is a fixed time contract.  Anything that may delay the launch date is going to receive a nasty reception from Boeing's management.  When the managers realise that say changing the shade of blue on the NASA symbol can expose the company to public ridicule they will get awkward.  It is not so much the minutes needed to buy the paint but the week the engineers on the critical path will need to write the report replying to the change request.

I don't think that is correct.  the contract is fixed in price and specifies what needs to be delivered.  I think 2017 is a "goal" (NASA has been very careful about that).  I don't think there is any fixed time thing.  However, everyone wants to reach 2017 and of course I am sure both SpaceX and Boeing want to be first for bragging rights.  A more realistic issue is when NASA changes requirements...something they are already doing and will continue to do so.

It is more than bragging rights.  We are rapidly approaching the "You want NASA to buy an extra Soyuz because of ..." point.

The ISS operational people will have to replan because astronauts are not where there need to be.  A repeat of the things they did when Shuttle was retired.

New ideas go into the Mark 2 vehicle.  Extra documents and reports get written after the launch.

[joek]

Just want to be sure, did you mean to say "no work performed" or no money paid out?

No work performed that would incur USG obligations and no monies can be paid.  If Boeing or SpaceX want to perform work outside the CCtCap contract, they are free to do so.  NASA is not free to do so and as erioladastra pointed out, that may be the most significant factor ...

No payment from NASA and NASA (CCP and ISS) cannot help either partner towards integration or certification.  Both Boeing and SpaceX are continuing to work towards their tCAP milestones.   SpaceX has money flowing in form NASA since they are behind on their milestones but probably have enough money in house anyway to keep pressing.  But in my opinion it is the interaction with NASA that will put things behind.  We will see in a short bit hopefully fi the courts will let them continue while the GAO occurs.  .

Agree.  And typically in at the start of the contract one of the first items on the agenda is some sort of kick-off sessions which require NASA participation, which would necessarily be on hold.  Not sure what you are referring to by the "courts" here?  The GAO protest process is specifically intended to provide quick resolution to disputes, and does not involve traditional courts; there is no recourse in the short term other than waiting for the GAO, or for NASA to issue a statement that there are compelling reasons why they (NASA) cannot wait for a GAO decision.

I don't think "flowing in" is an accurate depiction - as a milestone-based FFP contract, they get paid when they accomplish an agreed-upon milestone. The other option would be a cost-reimbursable contract where they get paid as they spend money. While a cost-reimbursable contract would be issued a stop-work order (because spending money encumbers the government), Boeing and SpaceX are spending their own money anyway. What the SNC protest does is put them at risk, because if they get dropped due to the protest, they never get paid. Each company can stop work because of the risk inherent in the protest, but any money they spend will get paid back if they make the milestone and aren't dropped from the winning companies.

Careful.  There are milestone payments, and there are also interim, progress or financing payments.  Just because a contract is FPP with milestones and associated payments does not mean there are not other payments made between milestones.  (We don't whether such is the case with CCtCap.)  The difference in payment types has to do with the government's ability to recoup payments in cases such as, e.g., contractor does not make sufficient and timely progress; contractor default or failure to meet milestones; contract termination due to cause.

In any case, at this point--and until this protest is resolved--there are effectively no CCtCap contracts in force (signatures on paper notwithstanding).  Therefore, by definition, no work can be conducted under such a (non-existent) CCtCap contract.  However, again, if Boeing or SpaceX want to proceed with work without a contract, without any expectation of getting paid for such work, without any basis for getting paid for such work, and can do so without incurring any USG obligations, then they are free to do so.

[ncb1397]

In any case, at this point--and until this protest is resolved--there are effectively no CCtCap contracts in force (signatures on paper notwithstanding).  Therefore, by definition, no work can be conducted under such a (non-existent) CCtCap contract.  However, again, if Boeing or SpaceX want to proceed with work without a contract, without any expectation of getting paid for such work, without any basis for getting paid for such work, and can do so without incurring any USG obligations, then they are free to do so.

Does it really matter? The only thing that matters is the following question:

Is there a market for U.S. based safe crew access space?

 If the answer is yes, you would think some business would want to exploit an un-exploited market with zero established competitors. Private enterprise should be clamoring to gain the capability to fulfill the market demands just like in any other industry. Imagine back when Commercial Crew was established if there was already a U.S. company with a proven design that had already flown. It wouldn't be a competition, their competitors would be slaughtered. Not only that, but they could demand a high premium and the government would pay it(just like the EELV market shows). If a business is too focused on government development money and can't see beyond that(i.e. providing actual goods and services where a customer can meet the costs of provision), and they consequently fall behind, this is simply market discipline. If every non-competitive entity was allowed to flourish and thrive, our economy would be vastly inefficient. The car wouldn't have replaced the horse and buggy.

Cutting off the suckling babes from their mother, if only temporarily, may be helpful for them to gain some measure of independance and maturity which is good for a competitive enterprise. If they aren't weened, I'm afraid the end result would be the corporate equivalent of man-children.

[FinalFrontier]

In any case, at this point--and until this protest is resolved--there are effectively no CCtCap contracts in force (signatures on paper notwithstanding).  Therefore, by definition, no work can be conducted under such a (non-existent) CCtCap contract.  However, again, if Boeing or SpaceX want to proceed with work without a contract, without any expectation of getting paid for such work, without any basis for getting paid for such work, and can do so without incurring any USG obligations, then they are free to do so.

Probably safe to assume spacex is proceeding. Fairly certain Boeing is as well though that is a bit more complex.

[woods170]

In any case, at this point--and until this protest is resolved--there are effectively no CCtCap contracts in force (signatures on paper notwithstanding).  Therefore, by definition, no work can be conducted under such a (non-existent) CCtCap contract.  However, again, if Boeing or SpaceX want to proceed with work without a contract, without any expectation of getting paid for such work, without any basis for getting paid for such work, and can do so without incurring any USG obligations, then they are free to do so.

Probably safe to assume spacex is proceeding. Fairly certain Boeing is as well though that is a bit more complex.

The order to stop work on CCtCAP is now in place.
Not entirely safe to assume SpaceX and Boeing will be proceeding on internal funds. From here http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1410/01cctcapprotest/#.VC5HsUCyFlc

NASA announced the winners of the Commercial Crew Transportation Capability, or CCtCap, contracts Sept. 16, and Sierra Nevada filed a protest to the GAO on Sept. 26, seeking "a further detailed review and evaluation of the submitted proposals and capabilities," the company said in a statement.

The legal challenge stops any work to be executed under the Boeing and SpaceX contracts, according to Stephanie Schierholz, a NASA spokesperson.

"Pursuant to the GAO protest, NASA has instructed Boeing and SpaceX to stop performance of the CCtCap contract," Schierholz said.

Officials did not say if the work stoppage prevents activities using internal funds.

[A_M_Swallow]

The order to stop work on CCtCAP is now in place.
Not entirely safe to assume SpaceX and Boeing will be proceeding on internal funds. From here

When they start firing people you know that internal funds have run out.

[clongton]

(1) It is my opinion that Boeing will perform only minimal activities while the GAO protest works itself out, only enough to maintain the CST-100 staff and facilities in stand-by mode pending the outcome. I say that because it does not like to expend its own funds unless it has a contract in hand. In this case they do but it is in real jeopardy. They will march in place for a while.

(2) It is my opinion that SpaceX will proceed, using internal funding, wrapping as much development  that are CCtCap related as it can into the completion of it CCiCap milestone efforts, because their CCtCap hardware was already under development. SpaceX was already working down this road before the award announcements and had every intention of continuing alone had they not gotten an award.

I believe those 2 divergent paths are a reflection of the internal goals of the respective companies. Boeing is in it for the money only, while SpaceX is in it for the future. Boeing's overriding goal is to return higher stock prices to its shareholders, with or without spacecraft, while Elon's overriding goal is to make mankind a multi-planetary species. Both goals are appropriate for the kind of companies they are. Both are good. Neither are bad. They are just different and each will follow the path that best reflects their different goals.

No bashing of either company is appropriate.

[Giovanni DS]

Both are good. Neither are bad.

They can make both sense for the involved companies but cash grabs and lofty goals are not even comparable IMHO.

Good or bad depend on the scale of values of the observers.

[erioladastra]

Agree.  And typically in at the start of the contract one of the first items on the agenda is some sort of kick-off sessions which require NASA participation, which would necessarily be on hold.  Not sure what you are referring to by the "courts" here?  The GAO protest process is specifically intended to provide quick resolution to disputes, and does not involve traditional courts; there is no recourse in the short term other than waiting for the GAO, or for NASA to issue a statement that there are compelling reasons why they (NASA) cannot wait for a GAO decision.

It is possible to go to court to allow NASA to proceed while the GAO reviews.  Not sure of all the risk and legal wranglings but it is possible.

[joek]

It is possible to go to court to allow NASA to proceed while the GAO reviews.  Not sure of all the risk and legal wranglings but it is possible.

It's generally the reverse ..

An agency may override the automatic stay initiated by a GAO protest by issuing a determination that there are compelling reasons not to wait for completion of the GAO process before allowing contract award or work to proceed.

That is an agency administrative action and no court is involved.  The GAO has no authority to reverse or otherwise prevent an agency override.  The only entity which can reverse an agency override is a Federal Claims Court.

In short, NASA could at any time effectively ignore the GAO (for the moment) and allow work to proceed under CCtCap by issuing an override.  If NASA did so, a petition might then be filed with a Federal Court to reverse NASA's override and prevent work from proceeding (presumably by the protesting party, in this case SNC).

That said, the probability of NASA issuing an override is likely nil as the bar is pretty high for defending such actions, and it would open a whole new can of worms.

[PreferToLurk]

The order to stop work on CCtCAP is now in place.
Not entirely safe to assume SpaceX and Boeing will be proceeding on internal funds. From here http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1410/01cctcapprotest/#.VC5HsUCyFlc

NASA announced the winners of the Commercial Crew Transportation Capability, or CCtCap, contracts Sept. 16, and Sierra Nevada filed a protest to the GAO on Sept. 26, seeking "a further detailed review and evaluation of the submitted proposals and capabilities," the company said in a statement.

The legal challenge stops any work to be executed under the Boeing and SpaceX contracts, according to Stephanie Schierholz, a NASA spokesperson.

"Pursuant to the GAO protest, NASA has instructed Boeing and SpaceX to stop performance of the CCtCap contract," Schierholz said.

Officials did not say if the work stoppage prevents activities using internal funds.

Assuming no internal funds (seems safe for Boeing, iffy for SpaceX), Boeing is completely done with their CCiCap milestones while SpaceX still has a few months of work left.  Wouldn't this imply that the Boeing time table is being pushed to the right, whereas the SpaceX timeline would be minimally impacted?  Or would SpaceX really be pushing CCtCap progress before the abort tests have completed? 

Seems like a potentially savvy move by SpaceX, if intentional, that they can continue work while Boeing is grounded in the event of a protest (which was pretty likely regardless of who lost).

Can anyone speak to the type of work that would be potentially disrupted at SpaceX due to this freeze?   Thanks.

[cambrianera]

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/kc-46-first-flight-delayed-to-april-2015-403764/

 

[symbios]

SpaceX has 3000 + people working. I do not think Mr Musk is going to let them sit on their arses and do nothing just because of a little snag like this...

PS. Do not know the % of people working in R&D for the Dragon and associated projects.