![]() ![]() It does not elaborate on what architecture would have been, although the passage that follows in the document is redacted. “Had Blue Origin known the Agency would waive the FRR requirements and other requirements that greatly impact schedule and risk, Blue Origin would have engineered and proposed an entirely different architecture with corresponding differences in technical, management, and price ratings,” it claims. However, it did not sustain the protests because it found no evidence that the companies “could or would have changed their proposals to substantially increase their likelihood of receiving the award had they known of the waiver of the FRR requirement.”īlue Origin disagreed. 10, agreed that NASA erred in not requiring an FRR before every launch of a lander element. The GAO, in the public version of its decision on the Blue Origin and Dynetics bid protests released Aug. There’s serious safety issues around that, and that waiver of material requirements prejudiced us and Dynetics,” Megan Mitchell, vice president of government relations at Blue Origin, said in an interview. ![]() “We stand by our position that NASA selected a proposal that was not in compliance with the solicitation. “The Agency’s decision to select SpaceX’s deficient proposal for initial, conditional award, was irrational and in direct violation of the Solicitation’s ground rules stating ‘ Offerors are hereby notified that proposals evaluated as having one or more deficiencies are unawardable,’” it stated in the complaint (emphasis in original.) NASA, in later negotiations with SpaceX, did require an FRR before each type of Starship launch, but that also failed to meet the requirements of the solicitation, according to Blue Origin.įailure to meet that requirement was a deficiency that Blue Origin argues should have disqualified SpaceX from an HLS award. Blue Origin alleges that SpaceX did not include FRRs before each “tanker” Starship launch, carrying propellant that would fuel the lander Starship. The core of Blue Origin’s argument is that NASA ignored a requirement that bidders include a flight readiness review (FRR) before the launch of each element of the lander systems. The complaint is effectively an appeal of the company’s protest of the Human Landing System (HLS) award to SpaceX that the Government Accountability Office rejected July 30. 22 a significantly redacted version of Blue Origin’s complaint filed with the court Aug. WASHINGTON - Blue Origin is seeking to overturn NASA’s award of a lunar lander contract to SpaceX by arguing that SpaceX’s proposal failed to meet requirements for reviews that made it “unawardable.” ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |