[URL=https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2019-11-18-Boeing-Statement-Regarding-OIG-Report-on-NASAs-Commercial-Crew-Program]https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2019-11-18-Boeing-Statement-Regarding-OIG-Report-on-NASAs-Commercial-Crew-Program[/URL] [QUOTE] Boeing Statement Regarding OIG Report on NASA’s Commercial Crew Program
“NASA overpaid Boeing to prepare for multiple crewed missions”
-- Through fair and open negotiations with NASA in a competitive environment, we offered single-mission pricing for post-certification missions (PCMs) 3-6, thus enabling additional flexibility and schedule resiliency to enhance future mission readiness.
-- This single-mission pricing for PCM 3-6 was included in the pricing table in the original contract. That original pricing table remains unchanged.
-- Contrary to the conclusion in the IG report, Boeing contends that the benefits in shorter lead time and flexibility in adjusting launch dates are well worth the higher price in the table.
-- We cut lead time to launch by two-thirds and doubled the launch rate for an overall price increase of only 5%.
-- Boeing assumed more up-front financial risk and is helping NASA with critical decisions key to optimizing future ISS operations.
-- Boeing now holds all the up-front mission costs, which NASA will not have to pay until after each PCM is officially ordered and given the Authority to Proceed (ATP).
А как на самом деле? Приведу несколько длинных цитат из отчета. Жирный шрифт мой.
[QUOTE]In September 2016, Boeing initially proposed pricing for crewed missions three through six using the single 2016 mission price—a price that was substantially higher than the discounted price for ordering four missionsin 2016 or the prices for single missions ordered in 2017 or later.43Boeing explained that eachof the fourmissionsshould be treated like a separate orderbecause NASAwould not begin payments until the Authorization to Proceed (ATP)was granted (indicating the startof milestone payments),which could be several years later. However, the NASA Office of Procurement determined the use of the single 2016 mission price was not consistent with the terms of the contract and did not match the contract’s fixed-price table,which establishedmission pricing based on when missions were ordered and the number of missions ordered.
As a result of a series of meetings, NASA officials requestedin December 2016 that Boeing usetheexisting fixedprices for missions granted ATPin 2017 and later. Further, as part of this request,NASA changedBoeing’s missionrequirementsand requested the contractor propose pricesfor additional flexibilities to fill ananticipated crew access gap, including shortening its lead times for rocket and spacecraft production.After prolonged negotiations, Boeing proposed substantially reduced lead times for all four missions, the ability for NASA to have a varied launch cadence through 2024 based on Agency needs, and no penalties for some NASA-requested mission delays. Citing the desire for mission flexibilities primarily driven by the need to fill a crew access gap in case Boeing was the only transportation option available,NASA agreed to payan additional $287.2 million above the fixed prices oran average increase of $71.8million permissionfor crewed missions three through six.
For the higher price than specified in the contract, NASA determined the added cost was reasonable for the additional flexibilities.The potential crew access gapidentifiedwas between Boeing’s second crewed mission scheduled for January 2019 and Boeing’s third mission in August 2020. [B]This gap was due in part to development delays for certification, Boeing’s 32-month production lead times,and contract prohibitionson starting payments for the third mission until completion of the ISS Design Certification Review milestone.[/B] At the time, Boeing’s ISS Design Certification Review was delayed 13months,which meant its third mission could not be granted ATP until at least December 2017,meaning the mission’s earliest possible launch date would be August 2020. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]NASA’s crew access analysis also did not include the five Soyuz seats the Agency was planning to purchase from Boeing for flights in 2017through2019. However, HEOMD officials knew in November 2016—one month before the CCP crew access analysis was finalized—that Boeing would be submitting another proposal for Soyuz seats to fill the crew access gapafter the last Soyuz missionreturned in May 2019.45These seats, along with others already purchased from Roscosmos, provided uninterrupted crew access through November 2019and provided the ISS Program redundancies without paying extra for shorter production lead times for four Boeing crewed missions. Five days after NASA committed to pay$287.2million in price increases for four commercial crew missions, Boeing submitted an official proposal to sell NASA up to five Soyuz seats for $373.5million for missions during the same time period. In total, Boeing received $660.7million above the fixed prices set in the CCtCap pricing tablesto pay for an accelerated production timetable for four crew missions and fiveSoyuz seats.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Both NASA and Boeing said the $287.2 million price increase for crew missions three though six was partially justified based on Boeing providing the capability to fly up to twomissions per yearthrough 2024. However, [B]based on both the original contract and CCP requirements, we determined Boeing’s proposal to fly up to two missions per year did not justify higher pricing because such a mission cadence was already a contract requirement. [/B][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][B]Despite paying an additional $71.8 million for a shorterlead time[/B] for Boeing’s third missionto help address the perceived potential gap in crew access,[B] NASA started milestone payments for this mission a year earlier than requiredby the contract[/B] because CCP needed more timeto review Boeing’s flight readinessdocumentation. In November 2018—for the third mission only—NASA removed the restriction of not granting ATP until the completion of the ISS Design Certification Reviewto ensure both the Agency and Boeing would have enough time to meet theinitial target launch date. [B] CCP then granted ATP and started milestone paymentsa year earlier than needed even though NASA paid a premium for a shorterproduction lead time. [/B][/QUOTE]