This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
SLS and Orion

More Wasteful EPO Spending at NASA

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
January 27, 2014
Filed under , ,

NASA GRC Educational and Outreach Support for NASA’s Orion Program
“NASA/GRC intends to contract to Alphaport, Inc. This is a follow-on effort to activities originally performed by Alphaport under contract NNC13QB53P in which Alphaport developed a visually library of Orion illustrations, graphics facts sheets, and other media products. Currently, Alphaport is the only contractor who has develop the initial media material and has the needed understanding of the media activities to complete the SOW requirements in the limited time available to support Orion Exploration Flight Test 1.”
Keith’s update: Huh? Just what have HEOMD and NASA PAO been doing the past several years? Why does GRC need to develop “a visually library of Orion illustrations, graphics facts sheets, and other media products” in addition to what HEOMD and PAO have already developed? Why does NASA constantly need to have multiple teams doing the same thing? And how can GRC possibly state that Alphaport is “the only contractor” with this capability? And yet everyone in the EPO and PAO world is constantly whining about not having enough money. Gee, I wonder why.
NASA’s Tangled Human Spaceflight Web Presence, earlier post

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

11 responses to “More Wasteful EPO Spending at NASA”

  1. J C says:
    0
    0

    While I totally agree with you that NASA needs to get its house in order regarding EPO, I think you chose a poor example to make your point. This is obviously a case where NASA has decided for whatever reason they need some additional materials and has decided to add some funds to Alphaport’s contract to cover the work. The “only contractor” phrase is typical boilerplate language found in every J & A. The actual justification is in the sentence right after that one, which you did not quote here; i.e., “Selection of another design contractor would likely cost additional monies to duplicate development….” etc. This is most likely true, especially since NASA chose a time frame of Feb 2014 – Feb 2015 (i.e., beginning next week).

    Your other questions regarding materials from HEOMD and PAO are quite valid, as is the one about duplication of effort. I’m just taking a little issue with picking on GRC for this one item. In fairness to your points, it’s not like NASA didn’t know they were planning to launch Orion. If they didn’t have the materials in house, they should have released a competitive RFP to design them, in time for some other bidders to respond. If Alphaport was really the best option, they as the incumbent should have had little trouble making that case.

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      This was a done deal. That is why they waited until the last minute. S.O.P at NASA.

      • J C says:
        0
        0

        Yeah, I know how that works. DoD is no better. You can tell by the lead time on an RFP whether it’s a real competition or they already know who they want. But you’re right about NASA’s EPO being a mess. If they had had their ducks in a row, they would have anticipated their needs for Orion materials in time to have either included them in the original SOW or have had an IDIQ under which to order materials as needed. Instead they now have to publicize to the world, “Look, we weren’t paying attention so now we have to write our contractor another check and explain why we’re not taking bids.”

  2. Turkman says:
    0
    0

    Why special outreach efforts for the GRC Orion effort you ask?
    Its the former program/project responsibility of the current Center Director of GRC…..and no amount of effort or money is too much
    to make on behalf of his former “baby”

  3. KeCo says:
    0
    0

    I don’t really have a problem with this if they are producing educational materials. PAO staff are not educators.

  4. Erin Wood says:
    0
    0

    PAO is not EPO. Get your facts straight.

  5. dogstar29 says:
    0
    0

    It is not a sole source solicitation per se but there are only three days to respond to the announcement, and it says NASA intends to award it to the incumbent. My question is, why does NASA need educational materials on Orion? To persuade the taxpayers it is a good investment? And if NASA does need educational materials about such a well-known program, why do they think only one contractor would know about it?

    • J C says:
      0
      0

      See my reply to Keith below. I’d guess this is the result of a poorly written original SOW. They failed to anticipate their possible needs. That’s what IDIQ (Indefinite Delivery-Indefinite Quantity) clauses allow for, but apparently they didn’t have one which would cover this need. If there were, they could simply have issued a task order to Alphaport for the additional work. But for whatever reason there was no provision in the contract so now they are in the slightly uncomfortable position of doing this publicly, which raises all the questions you have just posed.

      • Brian_M2525 says:
        0
        0

        So if I read you correctly they are bypassing a legitimate procurement process because of their prior errors? ‘Uncomfortable to have to do it publicly.’ No it sounds illegal to me. Hopefully the IG or the FBI are watching.
        Besides I cannot imagine what would be the rush for materials on Orion. ISS went for decades without any useful PR materials. Didn’t seem to affect a thing. ISS is flying; payloads are beating a path to get into orbit; The American public is excited about ISS.

        • J C says:
          0
          0

          No, actually they are *following* the legitimate procurement process. Nothing illegal; just inefficient. It’s a public notice of an intent to issue a follow-on contract. The notice includes an invite for anyone who has a legitimate objection or who thinks they can beat the incumbent offer to speak up. We actually tried that once, because we thought we had a legitimate counter-offer. It turned out there were legitimate reasons which weren’t apparent to us, and we ended up dropping it and allowing them to proceed. But the procurement machinery ground to a halt while our case was heard, just like it was supposed to.

          My point was that IDIQ’s are for when they don’t know exactly how much of something they need or when they need it. If they weren’t sure about their Orion materials needs, they should have constructed the original contract to reflect that. Now they have to go through this process and potentially open themselves up to a time-consuming and expensive challenge bid. Keith was using this as an example of how NASA’s EPO isn’t on top of things, and I was saying yes, but really it’s more an example of sloppy procurement–which is another problem NASA needs to address.

  6. docscience says:
    0
    0

    Apparently they need more Orion propaganda materials to show to Congressmen… they may be getting bored with watching the amazing and never before seen parachute and abort rocket testing.