Redacted versions of documents relating to Blue Origin’s federal lawsuit
against the federal government and SpaceX lay out further details about the
dispute over a multibillion-dollar NASA lunar lander contract, but the
details that are left out are arguably just as intriguing.
Today the U.S. Court of Federal Appeals released the 59-page text of the Blue Origin-led industry consortium’s complaint, which was filed in August.
The court also shared redacted responses from SpaceX.
The filings focus on NASA’s April decision to award SpaceX a $2.9 billion
contract to develop its Starship super-rocket as the landing system for the
Artemis program’s first crewed trip to the lunar surface, planned for as
early as 2024.
At the time, NASA said that SpaceX’s proposal was technically superior to
the concepts offered by Blue Origin and its partners — Lockheed Martin,
Northrop Grumman and Draper — and by another competitor, Dynetics. SpaceX
had the low bid, with Blue Origin’s team proposing $5.9 billion for its
landing system. Draper’s proposal was even more expensive.
The original hope was that NASA might make multiple awards, in the interest
of promoting competition and having a Plan B. But space agency officials
said Congress appropriated only enough money to make one award.
In a protest filed with the Government Accountability Office, Blue Origin
complained that NASA didn’t evaluate the proposals properly, and that SpaceX
was given a chance to restructure its bid to fit NASA’s budget. The GAO
largely sided with NASA and SpaceX in a ruling that let the contract award
stand, but then Blue Origin took the dispute to federal court.
Blue Origin’s lawsuit touches on the aforementioned talking points, but it
primarily focuses on waivers that NASA issued relating to “supporting
spacecraft” that are apparently used in connection with SpaceX’s landing
system. The details about those supporting spacecraft were blacked out by
the court.
The lawsuit argues that issuing the waivers for individual flight readiness
reviews and “other review requirements” for the supporting spacecraft gave
SpaceX an unfair advantage in the competition. “Blue Origin and Dynetics did
not get such a chance to compete with waived requirements the Agency
afforded to SpaceX,” it says. “Had it had such an opportunity, Blue Origin
would have been able to propose a substantially lower price…”
So what is the supporting spacecraft? References to SpaceX’s moon-landing
Starship and a tanker version of the same spacecraft that would be used for
in-flight refueling were left unredacted — so those probably aren’t at
issue. The redacted document makes no mention of SpaceX’s Super Heavy
booster, but guessing whether that’s the sticking point would be pure
speculation.
Blue Origin calls on the court to issue an order that would suspend SpaceX’s
work on the lunar lander contract and give the competitors an equal chance
to discuss their proposals with NASA. If the order is issued as proposed by
Blue Origin, the competitors would send “final proposal revisions” to NASA,
and space agency officials would make a new award determination.
In one of its responses to the complaint, SpaceX says Blue Origin is relying
on a “flawed interpretation” of NASA’s solicitation — an interpretation that
was “unfortunately adopted by GAO” in its ruling.
SpaceX also says the unredacted version of Blue Origin’s complaint should
remain sealed because it would disclose SpaceX’s proprietary and
confidential information. The judge in the case, Richard Hertling, agreed
with SpaceX on the redaction issue.
The court is expected to hear oral arguments in October, with an eye toward
issuing a ruling by early November. In the meantime, NASA has granted a
total of $146 million in fixed-price awards to Blue Origin, SpaceX,
Dynetics, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman through a follow-up program
aimed at boosting the space agency’s lunar landing capabilities.
No comments:
Post a Comment