CRS2 Source Selection Statement Released
Source Selection Statement for the ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) Contract, NASA (PDF)
Scores:
SpaceX: 992/1000
Orbital ATK: 880/1000
Sierra Nevada: 879/1000
Interesting reading. How is “Atlas V managing the risk of Russian engines”? asked Mr Gerst. He writes, he was “satisfied” with the answer, but the report gives no hint of what the answer was.
That’s typical management language. The report was written for people who don’t care about the technical details, and might or might not understand them. The target audience wants to hear that someone who does understand the details (and whom they trust) has gotten the information he needs and is satisfied with the answers.
That’s interesting that the document is written in the first person from Bill Gerstenmaier’s point of view. Is that the normal way of NASA procurement? People make reports and recommendations to a single empowered decision maker and then they make the decision?
I’m certainly not saying Dr Gerstenmaier’s isn’t a smart guy (though I do disagree with some of his recent public comments). I was under the impression things were done more committee style at NASA…
Anyone with more familiarity with internal NASA processes???
My experience is with NASA contracts worth about 1000 times less, but… The reviews and scores would come from a panel, possibly two or three panels. Then one person makes the decision based on the panel(s) findings. The use of first person is a bit unusual. I’d expect that in the private “congratulations” email but not the official document. I’m also not used to seeing the scores publicly released.
This is completely typical in the (many) selection letters that I’ve seen. The Source Selection Authority/Official (Gerstenmaier in this case) writes in first person; in the first sentence he refers to the recommendations and findings that the SEB (Source Evaluation Board) has presented to him. They did all the heavy-lifting in reading and evaluating the proposals against the RFP.
SO SpaceX has the highes NASA score being number 1 in the CRS source selection statement that excellent. ATK Orbital came in second and Sierra Nevada third place very respectable. So that how NASA choose companies by score rating source selection standard very logical method indeed. I very surprise NASA release the results this soon and amazed by the score result who 1,2, and 3 place very happy with the end results.
Kind of surprised that never having launched a dreamchaser that it did not get at least one weakness.