-
#1140
by
zubenelgenubi
on 31 Jan, 2024 22:03
-
Moderator:
If you want to talk 737 Max exclusively, join a commercial aviation forum.
Off-topic here.
-
#1141
by
zubenelgenubi
on 01 Feb, 2024 19:42
-
Moderator:
Also, no ad hominem attacks. Post deleted.
-
#1142
by
StarryKnight
on 05 Feb, 2024 17:46
-
To Boeing, space will always be a cost-plus contract.
Most, if not all, of the commercial communications satellite programs built by Boeing were fixed price. They've also built spacecraft components (e.g. solar arrays under their Spectrolab division) under fixed price contracts.
-
#1143
by
Jim
on 05 Feb, 2024 19:30
-
. To Boeing, space will always be a cost-plus contract.
That would wrong.
-
#1144
by
woods170
on 06 Feb, 2024 09:36
-
. To Boeing, space will always be a cost-plus contract.
That would wrong.
No offense Jim, but public comments from high-ranking Boeing officials in the past 12 months stronly suggest otherwise. That is, as long as it concerns government spaceflight. Recent actions by both Boeing AND NASA on upcoming contracts, including EPOC as indicated by the OIG, are also strongly pointing to Cost-Plus once again being the only option for Boeing.
-
#1145
by
Jim
on 06 Feb, 2024 14:59
-
. To Boeing, space will always be a cost-plus contract.
That would wrong.
No offense Jim, but public comments from high-ranking Boeing officials in the past 12 months stronly suggest otherwise. That is, as long as it concerns government spaceflight. Recent actions by both Boeing AND NASA on upcoming contracts, including EPOC as indicated by the OIG, are also strongly pointing to Cost-Plus once again being the only option for Boeing.
True, going forward but the OP said always and that includes the past.
-
#1146
by
SoftwareDude
on 06 Feb, 2024 15:12
-
. To Boeing, space will always be a cost-plus contract.
That would wrong.
No offense Jim, but public comments from high-ranking Boeing officials in the past 12 months stronly suggest otherwise. That is, as long as it concerns government spaceflight. Recent actions by both Boeing AND NASA on upcoming contracts, including EPOC as indicated by the OIG, are also strongly pointing to Cost-Plus once again being the only option for Boeing.
True, going forward but the OP said always and that includes the past.
"Will always be..." future tense
-
#1147
by
Jim
on 06 Feb, 2024 22:18
-
True, going forward but the OP said always and that includes the past.
"Will always be..." future tense
Nope. Will always be is it always was and always will be
The phrase "will always be" is correct and usable in written English. You can use it to express certainty that something will remain the same indefinitely.
-
#1148
by
zubenelgenubi
on 06 Feb, 2024 22:40
-
Moderator:
The points of grammar and/or syntax have been made.
Edit: semantics. Thank you, woods170.
Move on. Thank you.
-
#1149
by
meekGee
on 07 Feb, 2024 04:37
-
Irrespective of the meaning of that phrase, would it be reasonable to say that Boeing doesn't like the experience it had with fixed price, and would rather go in the future to where they were in the past, which is cost plus?
-
#1150
by
SoftwareDude
on 07 Feb, 2024 06:11
-
It seems like some people in the upper echelons of NASA don't like fixed-price contracts. I wonder if they are having trouble knowing the requirements to define a contract that is too complicated to know in advance. They are more comfortable with a statement of work from a contractor that can morph so that requirements can morph as new things are discovered. In the fixed-price case, unforeseen things arise, and the contractor takes a hit.
It's kind of like asking your contractor remodeling the bathroom to take the hit when they run into dry rot around the tub.
However, in the case of Starliner and the Commercial Crew Program, Boeing was the expert; they supposedly knew how to do it and were a slam dunk to build Starliner.
What NASA failed to consider is that Boeing's business model is not about providing services, not about the future of humanity in space. Boeing delivers units; they do not see anything beyond what was ordered. To Boeing, Starliner is a business similar to selling airplanes, satellites, missiles, and bombs to the Pentagon. Losing money on any delivery is the worst-case scenario for Boeing's business.
Meanwhile, the competitors, SpaceX and Blue Origin share a vision of opening space travel to ordinary humans. SpaceX built Dragon as a first step to bigger and better things. SpaceX is willing to put skin in the game and do and pay whatever it takes to be successful. SpaceX and Blue Origin thought up other business use cases for their spacecraft. Both of these companies see launches and travel tickets as a commodity. To Boeing, that is something a customer like Delta Airlines does.
Some NASA administrators didn't, and still don't, understand the difference between these companies. On the other hand, the Pentagon does seem to understand the difference and go with it. If the Pentagon can do it, why can't NASA?
-
#1151
by
woods170
on 07 Feb, 2024 07:00
-
. To Boeing, space will always be a cost-plus contract.
That would wrong.
No offense Jim, but public comments from high-ranking Boeing officials in the past 12 months stronly suggest otherwise. That is, as long as it concerns government spaceflight. Recent actions by both Boeing AND NASA on upcoming contracts, including EPOC as indicated by the OIG, are also strongly pointing to Cost-Plus once again being the only option for Boeing.
True, going forward but the OP said always and that includes the past.
Ah, semantics.
Lovely subject, but, as pointed out by Zubenelgenubi, OT for this thread.
-
#1152
by
litton4
on 07 Feb, 2024 11:25
-
It seems like some people in the upper echelons of NASA don't like fixed-price contracts. I wonder if they are having trouble knowing the requirements to define a contract that is too complicated to know in advance. They are more comfortable with a statement of work from a contractor that can morph so that requirements can morph as new things are discovered. In the fixed-price case, unforeseen things arise, and the contractor takes a hit.
It's kind of like asking your contractor remodeling the bathroom to take the hit when they run into dry rot around the tub.
However, in the case of Starliner and the Commercial Crew Program, Boeing was the expert; they supposedly knew how to do it and were a slam dunk to build Starliner.
.......<snip>
Some NASA administrators didn't, and still don't, understand the difference between these companies. On the other hand, the Pentagon does seem to understand the difference and go with it. If the Pentagon can do it, why can't NASA?
Well, you expect your contractor to perform a survey with reasonable skill and care to determine whether or not there are issues beyond the obvious scope of work. If you then discover additional issues, that couldn't have been detected, reasonably, it then becomes a negotiation. To use your bath (tub) analogy, we recently had a water leak issue that meant replacing the floor in our bath room, the contract was to lift and replace the floor, but also to inspect on the joists and report on any work arising from that inspection. There weren't any, but if there had been, that would have meant additional work and an extension to the contract.
The problem with cost-plus, as we've seen is that there is no incentive for the contractor to exercise skill and care, or work efficiently, quite the reverse as they know they can just charge the customer for the extra, no matter how it came about (within reason?).
Not good value for money.
If you're doing something brand new, for the first time, there is scope for a different argument, but that's not the case here.
Although I think SpaceX had a fixed price contract for CRS1, didn't they?
That was their first capsule ever and they didn't drop the ball.......
-
#1153
by
whitelancer64
on 07 Feb, 2024 16:46
-
It seems like some people in the upper echelons of NASA don't like fixed-price contracts. I wonder if they are having trouble knowing the requirements to define a contract that is too complicated to know in advance. They are more comfortable with a statement of work from a contractor that can morph so that requirements can morph as new things are discovered. In the fixed-price case, unforeseen things arise, and the contractor takes a hit.
It's kind of like asking your contractor remodeling the bathroom to take the hit when they run into dry rot around the tub.
However, in the case of Starliner and the Commercial Crew Program, Boeing was the expert; they supposedly knew how to do it and were a slam dunk to build Starliner.
.......<snip>
Some NASA administrators didn't, and still don't, understand the difference between these companies. On the other hand, the Pentagon does seem to understand the difference and go with it. If the Pentagon can do it, why can't NASA?
Well, you expect your contractor to perform a survey with reasonable skill and care to determine whether or not there are issues beyond the obvious scope of work. If you then discover additional issues, that couldn't have been detected, reasonably, it then becomes a negotiation. To use your bath (tub) analogy, we recently had a water leak issue that meant replacing the floor in our bath room, the contract was to lift and replace the floor, but also to inspect on the joists and report on any work arising from that inspection. There weren't any, but if there had been, that would have meant additional work and an extension to the contract.
The problem with cost-plus, as we've seen is that there is no incentive for the contractor to exercise skill and care, or work efficiently, quite the reverse as they know they can just charge the customer for the extra, no matter how it came about (within reason?).
Not good value for money.
If you're doing something brand new, for the first time, there is scope for a different argument, but that's not the case here.
Although I think SpaceX had a fixed price contract for CRS1, didn't they?
That was their first capsule ever and they didn't drop the ball.......
CRS1 was fixed price.
SpaceX has said before that if they had known how much it would cost them, they would have bid higher. They said the same thing about the Commercial Crew contract.
-
#1154
by
Jim
on 07 Feb, 2024 17:15
-
-
#1155
by
Jim
on 07 Feb, 2024 17:19
-
On the other hand, the Pentagon does seem to understand the difference and go with it. If the Pentagon can do it, why can't NASA?
Huh? How so?
Many of NASA contractors just provide end units and are in it for the money.
Others like Lockheed Martin look at providing spacecraft to NASA as a PR tool and to provide training to engineers.
-
#1156
by
aperh1988
on 07 Feb, 2024 17:22
-
SpaceX and Blue Origin thought up other business use cases for their spacecraft. Both of these companies see launches and travel tickets as a commodity. To Boeing, that is something a customer like Delta Airlines does.
Just for some off topic context here. Boeing used to run their own airlines until the 1934 Air Mail Act made it illegal for airplane manufacturers to own airlines. It’s a bit harsh to criticize Boeing for a culture/business model they were forced to adopt.
-
#1157
by
SoftwareDude
on 07 Feb, 2024 17:30
-
On the other hand, the Pentagon does seem to understand the difference and go with it. If the Pentagon can do it, why can't NASA?
Huh? How so?
Many of NASA contractors just provide end units and are in it for the money.
Others like Lockheed Martin look at providing spacecraft to NASA as a PR tool and to provide training to engineers.
Admittedly this official is unnamed but from here:
https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/06/weirdly-a-nasa-official-says-fixed-price-contracts-do-the-agency-no-good/"I can't give him a pass on the fixed-price comment," one of these officials said of Free. "On cost-plus contracts, the hardware is always late, and you pay more. On fixed-price contracts, it's only late. So yeah, his comment was technically accurate but totally tone-deaf. What really makes me worried is that I think it shows where the heart of the agency is."
At NASA headquarters in DC, where Free works, as well as field centers across the country, there are only a few hundred people who have worked with SpaceX and other contractors on the agency's commercial crew and cargo programs, and understand how they work. Very few of these people are in leadership positions.
At the same time, thousands of civil servants have only ever worked with cost-plus contracts, which give NASA more oversight and hands-on control of projects. "They are just biding their time until they can pounce on some misstep on a fixed price contract to say the approach doesn't work," one of the NASA officials said of these old-guard managers.
Emphasis mine
So, is Free the tip of the iceberg or a loner?
-
#1158
by
Jim
on 07 Feb, 2024 18:07
-
On the other hand, the Pentagon does seem to understand the difference and go with it. If the Pentagon can do it, why can't NASA?
Huh? How so?
Many of NASA contractors just provide end units and are in it for the money.
Others like Lockheed Martin look at providing spacecraft to NASA as a PR tool and to provide training to engineers.
Admittedly this official is unnamed but from here: https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/06/weirdly-a-nasa-official-says-fixed-price-contracts-do-the-agency-no-good/
"I can't give him a pass on the fixed-price comment," one of these officials said of Free. "On cost-plus contracts, the hardware is always late, and you pay more. On fixed-price contracts, it's only late. So yeah, his comment was technically accurate but totally tone-deaf. What really makes me worried is that I think it shows where the heart of the agency is."
At NASA headquarters in DC, where Free works, as well as field centers across the country, there are only a few hundred people who have worked with SpaceX and other contractors on the agency's commercial crew and cargo programs, and understand how they work. Very few of these people are in leadership positions.
At the same time, thousands of civil servants have only ever worked with cost-plus contracts, which give NASA more oversight and hands-on control of projects. "They are just biding their time until they can pounce on some misstep on a fixed price contract to say the approach doesn't work," one of the NASA officials said of these old-guard managers.
Emphasis mine
So, is Free the tip of the iceberg or a loner?
loner. Again, see Nelson post.
The article's author is clueless. There are many more fixed price contracts used at various centers.
NASA's IT services contract (NEST) is fixed price and it is around 3 billion. Every non SLS launch by NASA is done by a fixed price contract.
NASA has spacecraft built under fixed price. ( Rapid Spacecraft Acquisition IV )
[deleted]
-
#1159
by
Vettedrmr
on 07 Feb, 2024 18:58
-
loner. Again, see Nelson post.
The article's author is clueless. There are many more fixed price contracts used at various centers.
NASA's IT services contract (NEST) is fixed price and it is around 3 billion. Every non SLS launch by NASA is done by a fixed price contract.
NASA has spacecraft built under fixed price. ( Rapid Spacecraft Acquisition IV )
[deleted]
[Quote deleted]
SW Dude, please keep the DoD references to space-related activities, not perceived threats/YT videos of Chinese military capabilities.
