Fwd: Space Act deals draw lawmaker scrutiny

Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Gary Johnson" <gjohnson144@comcast.net>
Date: May 27, 2013 8:14:46 PM GMT-06:00
To: "Gary Johnson" <gjohnson144@comcast.net>
Subject: FW: Space Act deals draw lawmaker scrutiny

 

 

        May 26, 2013 10:36 PM  

Space Act deals draw lawmaker scrutiny

Cost, security of contracts questioned

Sierra Nevada Corporation's Dream Chaser flight test vehicle is now at NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center in California. / NASA

Written by
Ledyard King
FLORIDA TODAY

WASHINGTON — NASA's increasing use of unconventional contracts to carry out some of its most important work is drawing heavy scrutiny on Capitol Hill.

Several key Republicans are questioning whether the contracts, known as Space Act agreements, are compromising safety and security, or squandering tax dollars in order to speed development of missions or foster international partnerships.

NASA Inspector General Paul Martin also has begun an audit of how well the agency manages its more than 1,500 agreements with domestic and international partners. His findings are not expected until early next year.

The contracts allow NASA to reach a "legally binding commitment" with an outside entity for a specific service, such as education outreach, experiments on the International Space Station, or the leasing of NASA facilities — without having to competitively bid for it. They've been around since the space program began in 1958.

Lately, they've been used to accelerate development of NASA's ambitious Commercial Crew and Commercial Cargo programs that work with private companies to replace the mothballed space shuttles with space taxis that will ferry astronauts and supplies to the International Space Station. Under the agreements, the Obama administration has allocated $1.5 billion to three firms.

Under a traditional Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) contract, NASA auditors and engineers work closely with aerospace companies every step of the way to make sure detailed specifications are met.

Under these funded Space Act agreements, companies are paid to achieve certain milestones set by NASA. But how they get there is left largely to the contractor. It costs less, but the firms get to keep the intellectual property rights of their products, and there's a risk a problem could go undetected until later in the development process.

Some lawmakers, such as Alabama GOP Sen. Richard Shelby, who view the agreements as little more than blank checks.

"These agreements lack transparency and incorporate significant schedule leniency," he said at a Senate Appropriations subcommittee hearing last month on NASA's budget request for fiscal 2014. "Traditional government contracts provide full insight and control over the contractors and the product throughout the process to protect the government's investment and, ultimately, the taxpayer."

NASA Administrator Charles Bolden defended the agreements, saying that embedding NASA teams in the factories of Commercial Crew Program partners provides "sufficient insight" for the agency.

 

"I don't feel that we're in the dark with any of the contractors," he told Shelby at the hearing. "NASA uses Space Act agreements judiciously but we use them widely because it enables us to do much more than any other agency in the government can do for the budget that we have. We use them as a budget tool."

 

Republican leaders are skeptical of the Commercial Crew Program in general.

 

They view it as a threat to their top priority — development of a heavy-lift rocket system to take astronauts to deep space. As a result, Congress lately has provided slightly more than half the administration's budget request for the program.

 

NASA officials have said the lack of funding has forced them to rely on Space Act agreements for Commercial Crew development more than even they had intended. The agency had expected to return to traditional contracts last year, but proceeded with one more phase using the newer compacts.

 

An 2011 internal review determined that, as a result, NASA saved money on the Commercial Cargo Program.

 

Using a traditional contract, NASA would have spent between $1.7 billion and $4 billion to develop a vehicle capable of delivering cargo to the space station. Instead, California-based SpaceX spent $390 million on its Falcon 9, which last year became the first private vehicle to deliver supplies to the space station.

 

Keith Cowing, an astrobiologist and former NASA manager who now runs NASA Watch, an independent web site tracking space policy and agency operations, calls the agreements important tools that should not be done in by politics.

 

"Some amazing things — with real public benefits — can be done via this type of agreement," he wrote on his blog recently. "Let's hope that the NASA (inspector general) sees the value to these agreements and does not knuckle under to congressional pressure — pressure driven by ill-informed partisan agendas."

 

Republican skeptics say it's more than that.

 

Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., who chairs the House Appropriations subcommittee in charge of NASA funding, is worried other countries may be taking advantage of NASA's know-how through the international partnerships created through the agreements.

 

"While I suspect many of these (agreements) are appropriate, I am concerned that NASA may be sharing sensitive technologies (with) foreign governments, especially foreign governments that may not share our national interests in space," he said in a letter to Bolden earlier this year, asking for more information about the size and scope of the practice.

 

NASA has entered into more than 4,000 agreements since 1958, according to the agency. As of Jan. 24, it had 563 active international agreements and 1,010 active agreements with domestic entities.

 

One of those, a deal that lets Google executives park their planes at NASA-owned Moffet Field — just blocks from the company's Mountain View, Ca., headquarters — is drawing scrutiny as well.

 

Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, has asked the inspector general's office to examine the agreement. Martin responded to Grassley that it will be part of the audit.

 

Under the deal between NASA and H211, a holding company, the planes have been allowed to use a hangar since 2007 provided they pay $133,366 a month and conduct some scientific research on flights, according to a report by San Jose, Calif. television station KNTV, an NBC affiliate.

 

A NASA spokeswoman told the station the agency welcomes "anybody who wants to have a place on the NASA research park use the airfield who does two things: Have a NASA alignment to one of our missions, and (be) financially solvent."

 

 

Copyright © 2013 www.floridatoday.com. All rights reserved. 

 

===============================================================