Perhaps the two most interesting revelations are that Blue Origin offered an alternative architecture and increased its offer to put in more of its own money from $2 billion to $3 billion.īlue Origin argued that it would have submitted an alternative proposal if it knew NASA would waive certain requirements as it alleged NASA did with SpaceX, but the Court found the alternative “speculative and unsupported by the record.” Credit: Blue Originįurthermore, the Court found that even if the company did have standing, it would have lost on the merits because it did not show that NASA’s conduct was “arbitrary and capricious or otherwise contrary to law.” Illustration of the “National Team” lunar lander concept (Blue Origin, Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin and Draper). Its price was too high and the bid was noncompliant. Government’s position that Blue Origin did not have standing to file suit in the first place because it did not have a substantial chance of winning were it not for the company’s alleged violations by NASA. The 47-page redacted Memoradum Opinion was released this morning.īasically Hertling agreed with the U.S. Government is the Defendant, and SpaceX is a Defendant-Intervenor. Hertling issued his Order of Judgment on November 4 and gave the parties until today to confer and jointly propose redactions to the Memorandum Opinion. It adds details to the brief statement from Judge Richard Hertling earlier this month that confirmed NASA’s selection of SpaceX for the first HLS system. Court of Federal Claims released the redacted report detailing why it ruled against Blue Origin in its lawsuit against NASA over the Human Landing System (HLS) contract award today.
#Judge against contract redacted lunar lander full
In a tweet, Bezos said: "Not the decision we wanted, but we respect the court’s judgment, and wish full success for NASA and SpaceX on the contract.The U.S. We look forward to hearing from NASA on next steps in the HLS procurement process. We are also under contract with NASA to develop in-situ resource utilization technology, lunar space robotics, and lunar landing sensor collaboration including testing on New Shepard. We are fully engaged with NASA to mature sustainable lander designs, conduct a wide variety of technology risk reductions, and provide Commercial Lunar Payload Services. Blue Origin remains deeply committed to the success of the Artemis program, and we have a broad base of activity on multiple contracts with NASA to achieve the United States’ goal to return to the Moon to stay. Returning astronauts safely to the Moon through NASA’s public-private partnership model requires an unprejudiced procurement process alongside sound policy that incorporates redundant systems and promotes competition. Our lawsuit with the Court of Federal Claims highlighted the important safety issues with the Human Landing System procurement process that must still be addressed. It's not clear if Blue Origin will challenge the outcome (we've asked about this), but we wouldn't be shocked if there was an appeal. The company was also keen to tout its continued involvement with the Artemis program, including development of lunar resource systems, robotics and sensors. and showed the need for an "unprejudiced" process that spurred competition and included backup systems.
The case allegedly "highlighted the important safety issues" in HLS procurement. In a statement, Blue Origin portrayed the ruling as a partial victory. Blue Origin disagreed with the assessment and felt it made a good offer, but that still suggests NASA preferred SpaceX for its lower pricing instead of any unfair criteria. The agency believed Blue Origin was gambling with its initial $5.9 billion proposal on flawed assumptions that NASA would both haggle down the price and receive the funding needed to cover a more expensive bid.
The outcome isn't surprising given NASA's own skepticism.
0 kommentar(er)
