Feds dismantle Blue Origin and Dynetics protests of NASA’s SpaceX lunar lander award

0 2

Blue Origin and Dynetics are light steaming over NASA’s resolution to award most real looking probably one contract — to SpaceX — to manufacture a Human Touchdown System for the Artemis program. Their command of the resolution was once no longer too long ago rejected, and now the Authorities Accountability Workplace’s arguments, which Blue Origin publicly wondered, are on hand for all to study. Here are a few highlights from the level-by-level takedown of the losing companies’ complaints.

When it is probably you’ll per chance per chance be in a space to’t somewhat place in thoughts (2020 was once a long year), NASA in the originate chosen the three companies talked about for early funding to conceptualize and point out a lunar landing machine that can per chance per chance per chance build boots on the moon in 2024. They urged your next step will most definitely be, if probably, to hold two proposals to switch forward with. However when the time for awards rolled round, most real looking probably SpaceX walked away with a contract.

Dynetics and Blue Origin protested the resolution separately, but on same grounds: First, NASA will most definitely be pleased to be pleased awarded two companies as promised, and no longer doing so is risky and anti-competition. 2nd, it is going to be pleased adjusted the terms of the award route of when it learned it didn’t be pleased noteworthy funds to space apart for it. Third, NASA didn’t be pleased in thoughts the proposals somewhat, showing a bias to SpaceX and in opposition to the others in a form of ideas.

The GAO puts all of those concerns to mattress in its file — and in the arrangement makes Blue Origin’s be aware-up complaint, that the agency’s “minute jurisdiction” supposed it couldn’t adequately address the protests, gaze like the sour grapes it is.

One and executed

Image Credit: SpaceX

As to awarding one in would love to 2 companies a contract, the resolution is suitable there in dusky and white. The announcement clearly acknowledged just a few times that the general thing was once contingent on having ample cash in the first space. NASA would possibly per chance per chance be pleased most in model, hoped, even anticipated to award two contracts, but it surely was once very particular that it would possibly per chance well per chance per chance per chance also be awarding “as much as 2” or “one or more” of them. Despite every thing, what if most real looking probably one met the requirements and the others didn’t? Would NASA be obligated to throw cash at an defective applicant? No, and that’s roughly what came about.

From the file:

Even the place a solicitation comprises an scheme to create just a few awards, we’ve got got identified that an agency is no longer required to accomplish that if the extinguish consequence of proposal evaluation dictates that most real looking probably one contract wants to be awarded. As an instance, no subject an agency’s scheme, it would no longer, in making contract awards, exceed the funds on hand.

The GAO explains that the resolution-making route of at NASA weighted the technical arrangement the best, then set apart, then management (i.e. group, scheduling, and so forth.). Every company’s proposal was once evaluated independently on every of those traits, and the final results had been in contrast. Here’s a high-diploma summary of the ratings assigned:

Chart showing evaluations for SpaceX, Blue Origin, and Dynetics. SpaceX comes out on top and with the lowest price.

Image Credit: GAO / NASA

And the file every other time:

The technical arrangement mutter was once to be more essential than the total evaluated set apart mutter, which in turn was once to be more essential than the management arrangement mutter; the non-set apart components, when blended, had been critically more essential than set apart.

…Opposite to the protesters’ arguments, even assuming a comparative prognosis was once required, SpaceX’s proposal the best-rated below every of the three enumerated evaluation requirements besides the bottom priced.

When the funds for NASA was once finalized, it left less for the HLS program than anticipated, and the agency was once compelled to create some tricky decisions. Luckily they had a proposal that was once as appropriate or better than the others technically (the largest mutter), considerably better than the others organizationally and came in at a actually real looking set apart. It was once a particular substitute to award a contract to SpaceX.

However having executed so, NASA stumbled on that the cupboard was once bare. Even so, Blue Origin argued that it deserved to be contacted about somehow making it work. Possibly, they urged, if NASA had come to them to negotiate, they would per chance per chance presumably additionally want build collectively a proposal that can want regarded even better than SpaceX’s. (Jeff Bezos’s brazen after-the-reality $2 billion provide suggests they had some wiggle room.)

NASA, on the opposite hand, had already concluded otherwise, because the GAO confirms:

…The agency concluded that it was once no longer “insurmountable” to negotiate with SpaceX to shift approximately $[DELETED] in FY2021 proposed milestone funds (or approximately [DELETED] percent of the $2.941 billion total proposed set apart) to later years to meet NASA’s FY2021 funding obstacles. In distinction, the SSA concluded that it was once unparalleled for Blue Origin ($5.995 billion) and Dynetics ($9.082 billion) to materially lower their critically increased total proposed costs without material revisions to their respective technical and management approaches…

Redactions however, it’s no longer refined to gaze the grief here. While it was once probably, even real looking, for SpaceX to shift a few hundred million or so round to create the fiscal math work, already questionable on the $3 billion designate, it was once no longer probably that Blue Origin or Dynetics would possibly per chance per chance per chance shave half of or more off their costs to create those same fiscal milestones happen.

As NASA’s substitute community outlined on the time:

After accounting for a contract award to SpaceX, the amount of marvelous on hand funding is so insubstantial that, in my ogle, NASA can no longer moderately ask Blue Origin to lower its set apart for the scope of work it has proposed to a figure that can per chance per chance per chance potentially allow NASA to be pleased ample cash making a contract award to Blue Origin.

Blue Origin complained that NASA will most definitely be pleased to be pleased warned them that the funds would possibly per chance per chance per chance additionally consequence in restrictions in the factitious route of, however the GAO merely notes that no longer most real looking probably is the federal funds generally secret, but that the companies waited till after the award was once made to enhance a problem. Such complaints want to be timely in notify to be taken critically, it wrote, and furthermore there’s nothing in the complaints that implies that even had NASA warned them, anything would be pleased turned out another way.

There would possibly per chance be additionally the seek records from of whether picking a single provider is “anticompetitive and unduly risky,” because the protests build it. While the GAO admits that “these essential questions of protection would possibly per chance per chance per chance merit extra public debate,” the complaint is moot since NASA didn’t be pleased the cash to do bigger than one in the first space. As voters and advocates of funds for space exploration, we would possibly per chance per chance per chance disclose it’s a disgrace that NASA didn’t be pleased $6 billion more to play with, but that doesn’t mean the agency’s resolution to build the cash it needed to the most real looking probably reason probably was once incorrect.

In space, nobody can hear you shout

Image Credit: Joe Raedle / Getty Images

Blue Origin and Dynetics alleged that the arrangement was once biased in desire of SpaceX in that the a form of companies had been unfairly evaluated for strengths and weaknesses. However the GAO sees these complaints for the fluff that they’re.

In a single case, Blue Origin complains that the announcement did not particularly require the autos to be in a space to land at middle of the evening. Effectively, first of all, it does, and second of all, space is dusky. In case your assemble doesn’t preserve that into fable, you’re gonna be pleased a defective time available.

In a single other occasion, the communications systems proposed by Blue Origin and SpaceX both had been flagged for no longer assembly particular requirements — but Blue Origin bought a “essential weak point” listed for its machine and SpaceX most real looking probably bought a “weak point.” Evidence of preferential therapy, they point out.

No longer so noteworthy, says the GAO: “Even a cursory evaluation of the evaluation file demonstrates material differences between the proposals that make stronger NASA’s a form of evaluation findings.” On this case four of Blue Origin’s communications hyperlinks didn’t work as required, and a fifth was once a presumably. SpaceX most real looking probably had two no longer work appropriate. This make of tall distinction looked in every of the objections cited by the complainants.

Truly, the file goes on to disclose:

We direct that Blue Origin fails to rebut any of the prognosis offered by the contracting officer with admire to Blue Origin’s or SpaceX’s proposals. Truly, Blue Origin at the beginning challenged the agency’s evaluation of its possess proposal, but then affirmatively withdrew that command ground after receipt of the agency file.

Blue Origin groused that SpaceX bought extra parts for a assemble that concerned on the crew’s security, health and sumptuous, despite quite lots of the assemble decisions no longer being explicitly required. The GAO says NASA is effectively inner its discretion as an educated agency to be pleased in thoughts these as meritorious — after all, they name it a “handbook instance of why discretion is due” in such cases — and if truth be told, whenever you happen to’re objecting on the grounds that the competition’s tablet was once too tremendous, it would possibly per chance well per chance per chance per chance also be recommended to re-evaluate your priorities.

Image Credit: Blue Origin

Even had several of the selections been efficiently challenged, it wouldn’t be pleased modified the extinguish consequence, the file explains.

SpaceX received the next evaluation totals:

  • Technical: 3 essential strengths; 10 strengths; 6 weaknesses; and 1 essential weak point
  • Management: 2 essential strengths; 3 strengths; and a pair of weaknesses

While Blue Origin received the next:

  • Technical: 13 strengths; 14 weaknesses; and a pair of great weaknesses
  • Management: 1 essential strength; 2 strengths; and 6 weaknesses

It’s by no way a swish occasion to earn one has been totally beaten on nearly every mutter that counts, but that after all appears to be like to be the mutter here. Dynetics and its complaint meet the same fate, by the model, but with a dinky more tough therapy.

…Even taking into consideration the likelihood that the protesters would possibly per chance per chance per chance prevail on some dinky subset of their challenges to NASA’s evaluation, the file reflects that NASA’s evaluation was once largely real looking, and the relative competitive standing of the offerors below the non-set apart components would no longer materially swap…

The protests are denied.

It’s a moderately brutal documentation of the shortcomings of Blue Origin and Dynetics, and particular individual that wouldn’t had been mandatory had the companies taken their lumps and licensed that NASA isn’t out to discover them. They misplaced gorgeous and sq., and now they gaze like whiny additionally-rans in would love to bold would possibly per chance per chance per chance-bes.

Leave A Reply