CLPS Q&A 2 has been posted. It's more inside-baseball than the first. Mostly a lot of attempts to get rid of various clauses in the DRFP.What did stand out:* On-ramping will start in 2020 (A potential provider wanted it started in 2019)* Another potential provider wanted the deadline for delivering 10kg to the moon to be changed from 2021 to 2024. Not happening.* NASA will not require on-site representatives.* NASA is not willing to say they'll give up rights to inventions made with government funds to service the contracts. Small businesses (< 1500 employees) can get out of it by patenting the invention. Large businesses have to get NASA to issue waivers (which they'll do at their discretion).
Are NASA and the contractor using different definitions of on-ramping? The contractor meaning the initial batch of landers and NASA having a clause allowing for companies that apply several years late.
I assume the 10kg payload is a quality inspection by NASA. A payload possibly containing accelerometers to ensure the lander landed rather than crashed. With radio, GPS, inertial measurement unit and star trackers to verify the payload actually arrived on the Moon.
It is clause 52 that worried me."Govt Response: The clause will not be changed. NASA does not intend to issue task orders that cannot be completed within one year of the end of the contract’s effective ordering period."Does this mean that NASA will not allow a contractor to be more than 1 year late? Or contractors have only 1 year to build the lander and buy launch vehicles?
{snip}Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 07/05/2018 08:58 pmIt is clause 52 that worried me."Govt Response: The clause will not be changed. NASA does not intend to issue task orders that cannot be completed within one year of the end of the contract’s effective ordering period."Does this mean that NASA will not allow a contractor to be more than 1 year late? Or contractors have only 1 year to build the lander and buy launch vehicles?The "contract's effective ordering period" here is not for the individual task orders (moon landings and such) that will make up the contract, but for the contract as a whole. NASA is saying that they don't intend to spring anything crazy on the contractors in the last year of the contract, but there are some missions they think *will* be able to be done a year after being issued (remember this is many years in the future, like 2028 or so), so they're reserving the right to be able to request one. If such a request is *still* crazy, even in 2028, then it's just one task order ten years from now that all the contractors will ignore.
Is it a comprehensive list? Notably absent is Boeing but I guess since ULA is putting together a proposal then it kinda makes sense. But then again, LM is listed as an interested party
NASA has determined that creating or maintaining required domestic capabilities for production of critical space transportation services and vehicles to perform those services by limiting competition to capabilities manufactured in the United States or its outlying areas by domestically-owned and controlled entities is consistent with and necessary to implement United States space policy. [...]CLPS space transportation service provider prime contractors, as well as all firms that construct, produce, manufacture or otherwise provide space transportation vehicles for the purpose of the prime contractor's performance of CLPS must qualify as domestically owned and controlled as defined by the CLPS solicitation. Additionally, all CLPS space transportation service provider prime contractors shall provide a CLPS that utilizes domestic end products for all space transportation vehicles required for performance of this contract, inclusive of any launch vehicle and any other space transportation vehicle used to deliver payloads to the lunar surface. [...]NASA's intent is to limit sources for the CLPS procurement for the purposes of industrial mobilization.
NASA bringing down the hammer on this domestic-only thing:QuoteNASA has determined that creating or maintaining required domestic capabilities for production of critical space transportation services and vehicles to perform those services by limiting competition to capabilities manufactured in the United States or its outlying areas by domestically-owned and controlled entities is consistent with and necessary to implement United States space policy. [...]CLPS space transportation service provider prime contractors, as well as all firms that construct, produce, manufacture or otherwise provide space transportation vehicles for the purpose of the prime contractor's performance of CLPS must qualify as domestically owned and controlled as defined by the CLPS solicitation. Additionally, all CLPS space transportation service provider prime contractors shall provide a CLPS that utilizes domestic end products for all space transportation vehicles required for performance of this contract, inclusive of any launch vehicle and any other space transportation vehicle used to deliver payloads to the lunar surface. [...]NASA's intent is to limit sources for the CLPS procurement for the purposes of industrial mobilization.
They basically called out iSpace by name in one of the last ones too.
One thing that'd be nice to do in the future is start linking up all the companies in the interested parties list to show which ones are working together.An obvious one would be ULA+Masten. Though if it's just Masten (as ACES is far off), ULA could be on the list to offer rides.One that's less obvious but does have a little weight behind it is SNC+AJR, as they are apparently working together for their PPE study, and that means they already have a relationship, so maybe they've decided to buddy up for all things moon? Like I said, just a guess at this point.Draper Lab is probably doing flight software for somebody. Might be SNC, as Draper's doing the FSW for Dream Chaser. So that would be SNC+AJR+Draper, if everything above is the case.Any other connections are more opaque.
NASA bringing down the hammer on this domestic-only thing
The Commercial Lunar Payload Services RFP will contain the following clause and certification provision. [...]I.21 DOMESTIC SOURCE CRITERIA AND COMPLIANCE [...]The Commercial Lunar Payload Service (CLPS) is by definition a space transportation service, and as such, requires the construction of a space transportation vehicle (or vehicles) in order to perform this service. As such, both the CLPS space transportation service provider prime contractor, as well as all firms that construct, produce, manufacture or otherwise provide space transportation vehicles for the purpose of the prime contractor’s performance of CLPS, must be United States commercial providers as defined above. Additionally, throughout its performance of the contract (including any and all task orders awarded thereunder), the CLPS space transportation service provider prime contractor shall provide a CLPS that utilizes domestic end products for all space transportation vehicles required for performance of this contract, inclusive of any launch vehicle and any other space transportation vehicle used to deliver payloads to the lunar surface. CLPS space transportation vehicles will be considered domestic end products only if the cost of their components, mined, produced or manufactured in the United States exceed fifty (50) percent of the cost of all their components. The cost of each component includes transportation costs to the place of incorporation into the CLPS and any applicable duty (whether or not a duty - free entry certificate is issued).
"Maybe they'll think we're Boeing." Bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it pays off.