NASA: Commercial Crew Downselect is not a Downselect
Keith’s note: During today’s NASA/FAA teleconference, Charlie Bolden said that the new commercial crew Space Act Agreements are targeted for July. However, Phil McAlister said that these downselects will not be “downselects” at all but will be open to any bidder. However Rep. Frank Wolf recently issued a press release that said “Additionally, NASA has stated that it will reduce the number of awards anticipated to be made this summer from the 4 awards made under commercial crew development round 2 to not more than 2.5 (two full and one partial) CCiCAP awards. This downselect will reduce taxpayer exposure by concentrating funds on those participants who are most likely to be chosen to eventually provide service to ISS.”
Hmm. “reduce the number of awards” and “this downselect will reduce …” It certainly sounds like Rep. Wolf thinks that he has agreed to a NASA “downselect”. Phil might want to check with Rep. Wolf on this.
Alternatively NASA does something crafty like attaching the unfunded agreements to COTS.
Keith,
I can’t speak for NASA, but I’m guessing that this means that the CCiCapp funded awards are available to any bidder for CCiCapp. Awards will not be limited, a priori, to those companies funded under CCDEV1 and/or CCDEV2, which were also separate and distinct open competitions.
I’m also pretty sure that the Commercial Crew equivalent of the Cargo Resupply Services acquisition, which awarded fixed price commercial terms service contracts to SpaceX and Orbital Sciences in late 2008, will also be open to all bidders with a system they want NASA to certify and start buying services from. Even if they’ve never gotten a dime from NASA up until that point.
Phil is probably being careful that nobody draw the wrong conclusion from the word downselect. NASA is “focusing” its resources, but not necessarily “downselecting” from current awardees to pick the new ones. (Altho that would be a completely rational strategy, and inference to make.)
– Jim
Jim,
I’m waiting for the first time that NASA lets a contract to Company A, who in turn lets some or all of it to company B, and it turns out that the original contract was written in such a way that Company B is not constrained to all of the NASA-only requirements, just the combined (presumably lesser) NASA/FAA rules. Will it be allowed to happen? Will it have been done on purposes? Will it set a legal precedent? How will the insurance companies react? There’s more than one way to scin a kat.
Steve
I think Jim Muncy has it right (as usual). When one of the reporters mentioned “downselect,” that’s when McAlister emphasized that CCiCap would be open to all bidders – implying that new entrants (like Liberty) could make their pitch to be one of the “two and a half spacemen.” I suppose it’s possible that the also-rans could get some sort of unfunded agreement as a consolation prize. …
… implying that new entrants (like Liberty) could make their pitch to be one of the “two and a half spacemen.”
Like perhaps the “half spaceman” is the obligatory payoff for Liberty to pay off arsenal space with a “thanks for playing”?
add:
Mr Steve,
ATK – bottom. A specialization.
Mr. C,
I’m wondering who would turn out to be the more useful “half spaceman,” the top or the bottom. A vertical or diagonal split doesn’t seem practical.
Steve
Doubletalk in DC – that happens?
Folks:
Really, the decision here should be upselecting! If Spacex’s Dragon flight to the ISS wasn’t proof that America is ready for another industrial boom, I don’t know what is.
tinker
It is not really a down select since it is a new competition. No one is getting cut. CCiCAP is for 2.5 awards and CCDEV-2 was for 4 awards. A down select would be something like cutting 1.5 teams from the CCDEV-2.
“NASA: Commercial Crew Downselect is not a Downselect”
It’s just resting.
It’s not a downselection in the sense that new entrants are allowed to enter during each phase (including CCiCap). The Commercial Crew Office has explained this many times before.