-
#660
by
DanClemmensen
on 24 Mar, 2023 12:16
-
NASA needs a second CCP provider. If Boeing gets too much flack they just might consider stepping out of CCP. They have afterall threatened to do so multiple times in the past. Especially now that their financial losses on CCtCAP are racking up fast. They made those threats, despite the fact that they tried to hide those threats by lofty statements such as "We remain committed to fulfilling our CCP obligations".
I'm not a lawyer or a contracts manager, so I probably have this wrong.
In 2019, Boeing basically threatened to abandon the program due to cost exceeding likely revenue, basically forcing NASA to add money. NASA responded by awarding an additional $297 M and committing to all six flights instead of the original 2 committed and 4 optional., to effectively guarantee Boeing the ongoing revenue stream.
But I thought this was a two-way contract and this commitment to six flights and also obligated Boeing to provide those flights. Was I incorrect?
-
#661
by
clongton
on 24 Mar, 2023 14:06
-
So Boeing threatens to take their ball and go home? Let them. Of all the companies that competed for commercial crew, they were the one company that I had hoped would be shown the door. For all those times Boeing fans had touted their human rated experience, nobody would listen to the FACT that there was practically nobody left at the company anymore that had been involved in any of that. Boeing was without inhouse HSF experience in spite of loudly touting their (ancient) history with spaceflight. As soon as Boeing began touting their experience I knew that if they were in fact selected, they would become a pariah experience for NASA, as recent experience with them has now demonstrated. They did not get the contract because they were qualified. They got it because they had pull in congress, period. So let them pull their own plug and go home. Give the contract to the company that Boeing cheated out. It's not like replacing contractors hasn't happened before. Think Kistler.
-
#662
by
DanClemmensen
on 24 Mar, 2023 14:11
-
So Boeing threatens to take their ball and go home? Let them. Of all the companies that competed for commercial crew, they were the one company that I had hoped would be shown the door. For all those times Boeing fans had touted their human rated experience, nobody would listen to the FACT that there was practically nobody left at the company anymore that had been involved in any of that. Boeing was without inhouse HSF experience in spite of loudly touting their (ancient) history with spaceflight. As soon as Boeing began touting their experience I knew that if they were in fact selected, they would become a pariah experience for NASA, as recent experience with them has now demonstrated. They did not get the contract because they were qualified. They got it because they had pull in congress, period. So let them pull their own plug and go home. Give the contract to the company that Boeing cheated out. It's not like replacing contractors hasn't happened before. Think Kistler.
If Boeing fails to fulfill their commitment to supply the six contracted missions, are they obligated to return any of the money NASA has already paid them?
-
#663
by
clongton
on 24 Mar, 2023 14:19
-
If Boeing fails to fulfill their commitment to supply the six contracted missions, are they obligated to return any of the money NASA has already paid them?
I'm not a lawyer but in my opinion if Boeing decides to leave on it's own for whatever reason, then a case could be made that the money would need to be returned. But if NASA pulled the contract, I think it would be hard pressed to recover it unless deliberate malfeasance could be demonstrated.
-
#664
by
DanClemmensen
on 24 Mar, 2023 14:32
-
If Boeing fails to fulfill their commitment to supply the six contracted missions, are they obligated to return any of the money NASA has already paid them?
I'm not a lawyer but in my opinion if Boeing decides to leave on it's own for whatever reason, then a case could be made that the money would need to be returned. But if NASA pulled the contract, I think it would be hard pressed to recover it unless deliberate malfeasance could be demonstrated.
We were initially looking at Boeing pulling out. NASA might be able to pull the plug based on non-performance: after all, Starliner was supposed to fly in 2017 (or pick any of the later dates after the slips.) IMO the best move would be for NASA and Boeing to agree to terminate the program with no money changing hands, the threat of NASA trying to recover money balanced by the threat of Boeing trying to recover money to keep everyone out of court.
It's scary to not have an alternative to Crew Dragon, but we've lived with having either one choice or zero choices other than Soyuz for the entire life of the ISS, so I suppose we can continue to do so.
-
#665
by
joek
on 24 Mar, 2023 15:02
-
If Boeing fails to fulfill their commitment to supply the six contracted missions, are they obligated to return any of the money NASA has already paid them?
Depends on where those missions are in the delivery process. Payments are milestone based. For RDT&E, probability nil; milestones and payments have passed. Operational missions.... depends on where they are in the process. There are typically clawback clauses in those contracts, but who-gets-what depends on who decides to exit. In this case if Boeing initiated the exit, they would have to repay an "interim" payments (basically a loan from NASA). Any other repayments would depend on other contact T&C's, which I don't have at my fingertips; even with the original contact, no telling what has changed in the intervening years (and not always made public).
edit...
Original Boeing contract:
Boeing Commercial Crew Transportation Capability Contract (CCtCap) NNK14MA75C. Been years since reviewed in detail (discussed in ancient thread(s) somewhere).
Feel free threading through the T&C's. NB: lots of clauses by reference (e.g., FAR); following those can take you deep into a multitude of deep dark rabbit holes. (Many have made careers providing navigational assistance.) If you want to go down that path, suggest taking it to a different thread.
-
#666
by
clongton
on 24 Mar, 2023 16:11
-
It's scary to not have an alternative to Crew Dragon, but we've lived with having either one choice or zero choices other than Soyuz for the entire life of the ISS, so I suppose we can continue to do so.
For years we lived with only 2 choices for crew rotation for the ISS: Soyuz and Shuttle. Having Soyuz and Dragon would be the same.
More is better, but having just 2 has worked for a very long time.
-
#667
by
woods170
on 24 Mar, 2023 16:23
-
NASA needs a second CCP provider. If Boeing gets too much flack they just might consider stepping out of CCP. They have afterall threatened to do so multiple times in the past. Especially now that their financial losses on CCtCAP are racking up fast. They made those threats, despite the fact that they tried to hide those threats by lofty statements such as "We remain committed to fulfilling our CCP obligations".
I'm not a lawyer or a contracts manager, so I probably have this wrong.
In 2019, Boeing basically threatened to abandon the program due to cost exceeding likely revenue, basically forcing NASA to add money. NASA responded by awarding an additional $297 M and committing to all six flights instead of the original 2 committed and 4 optional., to effectively guarantee Boeing the ongoing revenue stream.
But I thought this was a two-way contract and this commitment to six flights and also obligated Boeing to provide those flights. Was I incorrect?
Boeing is free to step out of the CCtCAP contract at any time. But, it comes with some consequences:
1. Boeing won't be paid for milestones not met (such as not flying some or all of the PCM missions).
2. Termination penalties are built into the CCtCAP contract. Once Boeing decides to walk away, they will have to pay certain pre-determined amounts of money to NASA for terminating the contract early.
In other words: the "commitment" to fly the six PCMs is not all that hard, but violating the commitment comes with financial consequences.
Also: Boeing pressuring NASA into additional payments worked only once. They tried to do it again after OFT-1 failed (they tried to have NASA pick up the bill for fixing the many issues with Starliner). But NASA had learned from their earlier mistake and said "NO" to Boeing the second time. They explained to Boeing exactly what a "Milestones-based Firm Fixed Price" contract really is.
And that is why only additional work, outside the original scope of CCtCAP, results in extra payments to Boeing.
-
#668
by
woods170
on 24 Mar, 2023 16:26
-
So Boeing threatens to take their ball and go home? Let them. Of all the companies that competed for commercial crew, they were the one company that I had hoped would be shown the door. For all those times Boeing fans had touted their human rated experience, nobody would listen to the FACT that there was practically nobody left at the company anymore that had been involved in any of that. Boeing was without inhouse HSF experience in spite of loudly touting their (ancient) history with spaceflight. As soon as Boeing began touting their experience I knew that if they were in fact selected, they would become a pariah experience for NASA, as recent experience with them has now demonstrated. They did not get the contract because they were qualified. They got it because they had pull in congress, period. So let them pull their own plug and go home. Give the contract to the company that Boeing cheated out. It's not like replacing contractors hasn't happened before. Think Kistler.
If Boeing fails to fulfill their commitment to supply the six contracted missions, are they obligated to return any of the money NASA has already paid them?
No. Payment to Boeing is done based on completed milestones. However, early termination of the CCtCAP contract comes with termination penalties. So, Boeing won't have to return any of the money NASA had already paid them for completing milestones. But they will have to pay a "fine" for stepping out of the contract early.
-
#669
by
woods170
on 24 Mar, 2023 16:30
-
We were initially looking at Boeing pulling out. NASA might be able to pull the plug based on non-performance: after all, Starliner was supposed to fly in 2017 (or pick any of the later dates after the slips.) <snip>
Emphasis mine.
NASA is not going to pull the plug, because it is NOT in their best interes. Early CCtCAP contract termination, if any, will be fully initiated by Boeing. But as I have mentioned, it comes with some rather negative consequences.
-
#670
by
yg1968
on 24 Mar, 2023 16:55
-
What is Stich trying to do by bringing up Dragon's batteries?
Trying to downplay the fact that Boeing screwed up with batteries...again.
It is a textbook example of "whataboutism".
Yes, I get that but Stich doesn't work for Boeing; what is his motivation?
That should be obvious: keeping the heat away from Boeing is the purpose.
NASA needs a second CCP provider. If Boeing gets too much flack they just might consider stepping out of CCP. They have afterall threatened to do so multiple times in the past. Especially now that their financial losses on CCtCAP are racking up fast. They made those threats, despite the fact that they tried to hide those threats by lofty statements such as "We remain committed to fulfilling our CCP obligations".
NASA losing Boeing as a back-up CCP provider would invalidate a lot of the arguments used by NASA to go all-out on public-private partnerships.
Losing Boeing in CCP would give fuel to those people in US Congress who keep pushing for "fully government owned and operated" systems for Space Exploration. Those people still exist in US Congress, despite the recent departure of people like Richard Shelby and Eddie Bernice Johnson.
So, Steve Stich defending Boeing by applying whataboutism (with SpaceX as the subject) is politically motivated.
To be fair to Stitch, he made those comments before the delay according to the article. So he wasn't trying to defend the delay to CFT, since it hadn't even been announced.
-
#671
by
joek
on 24 Mar, 2023 17:15
-
NASA is not going to pull the plug, because it is NOT in their best interes. Early CCtCAP contract termination, if any, will be fully initiated by Boeing. But as I have mentioned, it comes with some rather negative consequences.
Thanks for simplifying. At the risk of sending this discussion down more rabbit holes (emphasis added)..
H.19 POST CERTIFICATION MISSION PAYMENTS, MILESTONES AND AUTHORITY TO PROCEED (ATP) CRITERIA
(c) All Post Certification Mission milestone payments are performance-based interim financing payments made in accordance with FAR 52.232-32, Performance Based Payments. Milestone payments once made are subject to repayment by the Contractor if the conditions defined in FAR 52.232-32 (j), Special terms regarding default, apply.
H.21 POST CERTIFICATION MISSION SUCCESS DETERMINATION
(j) Special terms regarding default, and; NFS 1852.223-75 Major Breach of Safety or Security For all other activities under the contract not part of this PCM task order, the Government reserves the right to terminate the contract for default in accordance with FAR 52.249-8 Default (Fixed-Price Supply and Service).
Feel free to pull on those FAR and NSF regs-threads and make of them what you will. But again, if you want to go down that path, suggest another thread as you are likely to get a bevy of opinions on the legalese, little of which has anything to do with the primary topic of this thread.
-
#672
by
SoftwareDude
on 24 Mar, 2023 17:29
-
What is Stich trying to do by bringing up Dragon's batteries?
Trying to downplay the fact that Boeing screwed up with batteries...again.
It is a textbook example of "whataboutism".
Yes, I get that but Stich doesn't work for Boeing; what is his motivation?
That should be obvious: keeping the heat away from Boeing is the purpose.
NASA needs a second CCP provider. If Boeing gets too much flack they just might consider stepping out of CCP. They have afterall threatened to do so multiple times in the past. Especially now that their financial losses on CCtCAP are racking up fast. They made those threats, despite the fact that they tried to hide those threats by lofty statements such as "We remain committed to fulfilling our CCP obligations".
NASA losing Boeing as a back-up CCP provider would invalidate a lot of the arguments used by NASA to go all-out on public-private partnerships.
Losing Boeing in CCP would give fuel to those people in US Congress who keep pushing for "fully government owned and operated" systems for Space Exploration. Those people still exist in US Congress, despite the recent departure of people like Richard Shelby and Eddie Bernice Johnson.
So, Steve Stich defending Boeing by applying whataboutism (with SpaceX as the subject) is politically motivated.
Sounds like Steve Stitch is trying to hold things together and he feels there is a very real possibility of Boeing pulling the plug on Starliner. Another data point on that is the lack of press releases by Boeing about Starliner. They've been very quiet since oft-2. This upcoming launch, when and if it happens, is likely a do-or-die moment. We also have this business of ULA that might be up for sale and my guess is that it is Boeing wants out of ULA. Boeing's profit margin for 2022 was -7.4% read minus seven point four percent.
-
#673
by
mandrewa
on 24 Mar, 2023 17:53
-
Boeing Starliner looks like it is close to being successful. None of the possible issues with the current Starliner that I've heard about sound like they are likely to be real issues.
The Soyuz is not a real backup for the Crew Dragon. We can't negotiate new contracts to fly astronauts to the ISS, like was once done. That is no longer tenable.
We need to have at least one real backup for the Falcon 9 and Crew Dragon to support ISS and future commercial LEO space stations. Orion is not a solution to that problem.
So we, or everyone that cares about space, will all lose out if Starliner fails.
And although Starliner is late, it is still from an economic perspective, much cheaper than that crew capsule would have been if NASA were building it with the obvious point of comparison being Orion and the Orion's Crew Service Module.
-
#674
by
abaddon
on 24 Mar, 2023 18:56
-
Give the contract to the company that Boeing cheated out. It's not like replacing contractors hasn't happened before. Think Kistler.
You mean the company that can't even deliver on their cargo vehicle, yet still shows fancy renders of a crew craft that's complete fantasy? That company?
Boeing isn't covering themselves with glory, but neither is the company Boeing "cheated". You may recall that company publicly advocated for themselves and Boeing winning the two contracts for CCtCAP; can you imagine where we'd be if that had happened?
-
#675
by
SoftwareDude
on 24 Mar, 2023 19:25
-
Boeing Starliner looks like it is close to being successful. None of the possible issues with the current Starliner that I've heard about sound like they are likely to be real issues.
The Soyuz is not a real backup for the Crew Dragon. We can't negotiate new contracts to fly astronauts to the ISS, like was once done. That is no longer tenable.
We need to have at least one real backup for the Falcon 9 and Crew Dragon to support ISS and future commercial LEO space stations. Orion is not a solution to that problem.
So we, or everyone that cares about space, will all lose out if Starliner fails.
And although Starliner is late, it is still from an economic perspective, much cheaper than that crew capsule would have been if NASA were building it with the obvious point of comparison being Orion and the Orion's Crew Service Module.
Maybe not the technical issues, it is more likely Boeing's internal issues that sink Starliner. Is Boeing going to have a positive profit margin on crew launches going forward if CFT is successful?
-
#676
by
clongton
on 25 Mar, 2023 01:27
-
Give the contract to the company that Boeing cheated out. It's not like replacing contractors hasn't happened before. Think Kistler.
You mean the company that can't even deliver on their cargo vehicle,
Yes, that company. Their delivery delays are directly tied to the funding that was needed to meet the contracts requirements, that Boeing got instead, leaving that company to struggle on its own to stay viable. Yes,
that company.
-
#677
by
freddo411
on 25 Mar, 2023 01:42
-
Boeing Starliner looks like it is close to being successful. None of the possible issues with the current Starliner that I've heard about sound like they are likely to be real issues.
The Soyuz is not a real backup for the Crew Dragon. We can't negotiate new contracts to fly astronauts to the ISS, like was once done. That is no longer tenable.
We need to have at least one real backup for the Falcon 9 and Crew Dragon to support ISS and future commercial LEO space stations. Orion is not a solution to that problem.
So we, or everyone that cares about space, will all lose out if Starliner fails.
And although Starliner is late, it is still from an economic perspective, much cheaper than that crew capsule would have been if NASA were building it with the obvious point of comparison being Orion and the Orion's Crew Service Module.
I agree it is much preferable to have a dissimilar backup capsule, but it’s not a “need”. Prior to the start of the close cooperation with Russia, there was no backup to any US vehicle. Arguably, there is not a real backup right now.
When SL starts flying, I don’t expect an emergency SL flight would be very quick…. Unlike a dragon, which could be cycled quickly
I hope for SL success.
-
#678
by
clongton
on 25 Mar, 2023 08:37
-
What is "SL"?
-
#679
by
ZachS09
on 25 Mar, 2023 12:35
-
What is "SL"?
Abbreviation for Starliner.