Overall Portfolio Considerations

As part of my comparative assessment of the proposals, I determined the importance of various
evaluation criteria in the Announcement for the purposes of selecting the portfolio, as permitted
under the CCDev 2 evaluation plan. As mentioned, all data was considered; however, certain
factors were given more weight than others in my deliberations.

For one, I considered the diversity of the portfolio to be of importance. U.S. industry is fairly
early in the process of maturing crew transportation systems (CTS). While several proposers
have made substantial progress on the development of their CTS concepts, none have progressed
beyond a Preliminary Design Review (PDR) level of maturity. In addition, CCDev 2 did not
request proposals for integrated, end-to-end CTS. The announcement requested proposals for
further development of elements of the system, such as spacecraft and launch vehicles.
Although I considered proposers’ longer term plans for integration of complete systems, I
focused on funding a diversity of CTS element concepts during CCDev 2. | felt it would be
premature to significantly reduce competition at this early stage. The benefits of competition
among multiple partners are significant, as it incentivizes performance and supports cost-
effectiveness. Thus, I considered it to be the most effective use of the CCDev 2 funds to support
multiple proposals representing a variety of concepts.

Second, I placed high importance on business considerations. My rationale was that NASA will
be a partner in the CTS development, providing significant technical human spaceflight expertise
and experience to the awardees throughout the development. However, NASA will not provide
business assistance. The awardees will be responsible for “closing their business case” and
successfully bringing their systems and services to market. As stated in the Announcement, the
goal of CCDev 2 is to develop crew transportation capabilities for both commercial and
government customers. To do this, NASA is pursuing an innovative strategy featuring a public-
private partnership, with the commercial partner responsible for its own viable business
strategy. Thus, I highly weighted proposals that demonstrated a strong business approach.

Third, | weighted spacecraft proposals slightly higher than those for launch vehicles. Within the
U.S. industrial base, there is considerable launch vehicle development expertise and experience,
as many companies have successfully developed new launch vehicles over the last few decades.
In contrast, no U.S. company has successfully developed a crew-carrying spacecraft in over thirty
years. Thus, I considered that development of spacecraft was more important in accelerating
development of a commercial CTS.

Specific Portfolio Considerations

The Boeing and SpaceX proposals stood out from the rest. Boeing received the highest
confidence rating that could be achieved in technical approach, and SpaceX received the highest
confidence rating that could be achieved in business approach; meaning that they had a “Very
High” likelihood of successfully executing CCDev 2 and a “Very High” likelihood of meeting or
exceeding all the goals/objectives of CCDev 2. They were the only ones to receive “Very High”
confidence ratings, which I considered significant. °

14


Blue Origin

For the Technical Approach evaluation, Blue Origin received a level of confidence of Yellow.
Strengths included proposed concept offers significant operational capability; concept provides
flexibility for optimizing crew and cargo up-mass and down-mass; risk retirement concept;
critical tests of the launch escape system during CCDev 2 timeframe; effective and integrated
S&MA organizational structure; dissimilar redundancy in flight control for critical flight phases;
and well defined objective success criteria for performance milestones. Weaknesses included
identified capabilities do not mature TRLs appreciably during timeframe of agreement;
insufficient information to evaluate proposed reusability; lack of discussion on integration and
human certification of launch vehicle; failure to identify long term development risks; lack of
detail on subsystem mass margins; lack of specificity on maturation of space vehicle design
during CCDev 2 timeframe; unclear definition of abort scenarios; investments may not advance
development of a CTS capability; lack of overall development plan; safety & mission assurance
processes to reduce risks not appropriately associated with proposed performance milestones or
design review milestones; lack of detail to assess controllability of spacecraft with proposed
escape system; lack of understanding of NASA’s draft human certification requirements or
industry equivalent; and certain performance milestones have inadequately defined success
criteria.

For the Business Information evaluation, Blue Origin received a level of confidence rating of
White. Strengths included a creative and marketable business strategy; financial resources to
fund its CCDev 2 effort; and significant infrastructure and facilities investments. Weaknesses
included lack of financial information; some requested investment does not relate to acceleration
of CTS capability; and lack of information on cost and risk assessments of requested government
resources,

The Boeing Company (Boein

For the Technical Approach evaluation, Boeing received a level of confidence of White.
Strengths included an efficient propulsion system; landing concept offers significant operational
capability; use of non-toxic propellant for crew module; design and manufacturing for re-use of
crew module; flexibility for optimizing crew and cargo up-mass and down-mass; processes for
identifying, evaluating, and documenting risks during CCDev 2 and for the overall program; early
human factors assessments and demonstrations; approach and activities for maturing
capabilities during CCDev 2; comprehensive S&MA approach for each S&MA discipline;
dissimilar redundancy for critical flight phases; and use of reliability analyses in approach to
achieving human certification. Weaknesses included failure to address integration or human
certification of the launch vehicle; limited on-orbit capability; docking system inconsistent with
NASA baselined system; failure to address risks associated with certifying vehicle for multiple
uses; overly optimistic design schedule; lacks demonstration of effective and integrated S&2MA
organizational structure; insufficient information to assess controllability of spacecraft with a
launch abort system; failure to identify risks and associated mitigation strategies for crew
module depressurization or fore; safety & mission assurance processes to reduce risks not
appropriately associated with proposed performance milestones or design review milestones;


performance milestones or major design milestones; and inadequate definition of performance
milestone success criteria.

For the Business Information evaluation, t/Space received a level of confidence rating of Red. No
strengths were identified. Weaknesses included failure to provide monetary investment in
CCDev 2 efforts as required by the Announcement; management team lacks demonstrated space
flight integration experience; insufficient information to demonstrate availability of facilities and
personnel; and insufficient information to demonstrate commitment of proposed team members.

United Launch Alliance, LLC (ULA)

For the Technical Approach evaluation, ULA received a level of confidence of White. Strengths
included use of existing flight proven vehicles and infrastructure; adaptable emergency detection
system; and performance capability for crew abort scenarios. Weaknesses included insufficient
data to understand impacts of Centaur modification; insufficient definition of the systems level
responsibility for integration of a spacecraft and launch vehicle; insufficient detail to evaluate if
all Centaur modifications and related risks have been identified; lack of definition of critical path
to an initial launch capability and correlation to CCDev 2 efforts; failure to demonstrate an
effective and integrated S&MA organizational structure; failure to demonstrate an understanding
of NASA's draft human certification requirements or an industry equivalent; failure to
adequately describe association of standard S&MA processes with proposed performance
milestones or major design review milestones; and inadequate definition of performance
milestone success criteria.

For the Business Information evaluation, ULA received a level of confidence rating of White.
Strengths included suitability to deliver proposed capabilities; strong, highly experienced
management team; facilities needed for CCDev 2 already in place; and experienced and
knowledgeable suppliers. Weaknesses included inadequate description of commercial space
transportation markets; failure to provide requested financials; failure to state total amount of
funding required for full development and demonstration of system; and failure to adequately
address laws and policy in Section 4.3 of the Announcement.

Il. Final Evaluation after Due Diligence

In accordance with the Announcement and Evaluation Plan, the most favorably evaluated
proposals were selected for due diligence. Eight proposals went through due diligence: ATK
Aerospace Systems, Blue Origin, The Boeing Company, Excalibur Almaz Inc., Orbital Sciences
Corp., Sierra Nevada Corp., Space Exploration Technologies Corp., and United Launch Alliance
LLC. Three proposals did not receive any further evaluation: Orbital Space Transport LLC,
PlanetSpace Inc., and Transformational Space Corporation.

The PEP modified the consensus findings and level of confidence color ratings based on the

results of further due diligence. These final evaluation summaries and confidence ratings were
presented to me on March 25, 2011 and are summarized below.

10


milestone success criteria. Weaknesses included failure to address the integration or human
certification of the launch vehicle; insufficient information to evaluate spacecraft reusability;
insufficient rationale for baselining life support system; insufficient detail on accommodation of
de-conditioned crew members during entry and landing; failure to prioritize significant
development risks and CCDev 2 activities; overly optimistic design schedule; insufficient
information to assess controllability of spacecraft with a launch abort system; failure to address
elimination of black zones during launch abort scenarios; safety & mission assurance processes
to reduce risks not appropriately associated with proposed performance milestones or design
review milestones; and inadequate definition of performance milestone success criteria.

For the Business Information evaluation, OSC received a level of confidence rating of White.
Strengths included strong management team highly experienced in human spaceflight;
reasonable development and demonstration cost estimates; and experienced and knowledgeable
suppliers. Weaknesses included failure to provide requested financial information and lack of
information on cost and risk assessments of requested government resources.

Orbital Space Transport, LLC (OST)

For the Technical Approach evaluation, OST received a level of confidence of Red. The only
strength found related to the heritage design and development of spacecraft design. Weaknesses
included insufficient information to evaluate proposed overall subsystem design, mass margin,
and manufacturing capability; insufficient information to evaluate proposed reusability of
spacecraft; development of docking system during CCDev 2 does not significantly accelerate CTS
capability; failure to address integration or human certification of the launch vehicle; insufficient
information to evaluate critical systems; insufficient detail on accommodation of de-conditioned
crew members during entry and landing; insufficient data on maturation plan for spacecraft and
launch abort system; overly optimistic design schedule; failure to demonstrate an effective and
integrated S&MA organizational structure; failure to adequately describe association of standard
S&MA processes with proposed performance milestones or major design milestones; failure to
address abort conditions; inadequate definition of performance milestone success criteria; and
failure of proposed performance milestones to clearly demonstrate significant progress on
maturing design and development during CCDev 2.

For the Business Information evaluation, OST received a level of confidence rating of Red. No
strengths were identified. Weaknesses included insufficient information to substantiate
participant's long-term viability; failure to provide requested financial information; intellectual
property is not currently in place and facilities are limited; lack of information on cost and risk
assessments of requested government resources; insufficient detail on personnel resources; lack
of information on cost and risk assessments of requested government resources; and lack of
detail on proposed teaming arrangements

PlanetSpace, Inc.
For the Technical Approach evaluation, PlanetSpace received a level of confidence of Red. The

only strength found related to proposed leveraging of heritage elements from existing vehicles
into the spacecraft. Weaknesses included insufficient detail to evaluate overall concept and


insufficient engine testing; large comprehensive set of non-prioritized interrelated milestones;
inadequate definition of performance milestone success criteria; inadequate traceability from
performance milestones to design review milestone progress.

For the Business Information evaluation, Boeing received a level of confidence rating of Yellow.
Strengths included low-risk and marketable business strategy; management team with extensive
human space flight experience; reasonable development and demonstration cost estimates; and
strong teaming arrangement. Weaknesses included requested investment exceeded amount
stated in the Announcement and failure to provide requested pro-forma information.

Excalibur Almaz Incorporated (EAI

For the Technical Approach evaluation, EAI received a level of confidence of Yellow. Strengths
included leveraging of an existing crew vehicle structure; landing concept offers significant
operational capability; processes for identifying, evaluating, and documenting risks during
CCDev 2 and for the overall program; and effective and integrated S&MA organizational
structure. Weaknesses included insufficient detail on breadth and depth of engineering and
manufacturing experience; insufficient data on heritage hardware pedigree; insufficient
information on quantity of hardware and relationship to flight/test plans; insufficient
information on the integration of systems; insufficient information on proposed launch abort
system; failure to address development risks for certain component development; some
proposed tasks not shown to advance a CTS capability; failure to map key development risks to
proposed milestones; insufficient detail to assess applicability and adaptability of legacy design
to commercial crew; lack of understanding of NASA's draft human certification requirements or
industry equivalent; safety & mission assurance processes to reduce risks not appropriately
associated with proposed performance milestones or design review milestones; and inadequate
definition of performance milestone success criteria.

For the Business Information evaluation, EAI received a level of confidence rating of Yellow. No
strengths were identified. Weaknesses included inadequate information about acquisition of
hardware, relationship to supplier, and projected revenues; unclear source of CCDev 2
investment; lack of information about the total amount of funding needed for development of
capability; insufficient detail to show that stated resources are in place; insufficient information
about experience with suppliers and teaming arrangements; and insufficient information on
INKSNA compliance.

Orbital Sciences Corporation (OSC

For the Technical Approach evaluation, OSC received a level of confidence of White. Strengths
included significant operational capability of proposed concept; heritage design and
development of spacecraft design; simple, robust launch abort system; on-orbit flight margin;
thorough understanding of technical and programmatic risks and tasks; comprehensive
architecture and organized overall approach; demonstration of effective and integrated SMA
organizational structure; comprehensive S&MA approach for each S&MA discipline;
demonstrated understanding of NASA’s draft human certification requirements; dissimilar
redundancy and failure tolerance in key areas; and inadequate definition of performance


flight experience; failure to provide requested financial information; and lack of information on
resources planned for CCDev 2 work.

Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX.

For the Technical Approach evaluation, SpaceX received a level of confidence of White.
Strengths included use of flight demonstrated hardware and number of flights of system prior to
crewed flight; an efficient propulsion system for abort and on-orbit maneuvering; proposed
launch vehicle allows for true “test-like-you-fly” operations; comprehensive description of risk
selection methodology; successful attainment of FAA license for entry and landing ofa
spacecraft; development of a draft crew certification plan during CCDev 2; demonstration of
effective and integrated S&MA organizational structure; comprehensive S&MA approach for each
S&MA discipline; and dissimilar redundancy for critical flight phases. Weaknesses included
insufficient detail on landing and recovery plans; failure to address integration or certification of
launch vehicle; insufficient data to determine launch abort system performance; failure to
identify long term development risks; proposed mitigation for integration of the launch abort
system and crew accommodations; plan to conduct launch abort engine CDR prior to building
test article; insufficient information on the scope and success criteria for launch abort
engine/system development; overly optimistic design schedule; insufficient detail to assess
controllability of spacecraft with a launch abort system; inadequate definition of performance
milestone success criteria; and insufficient information on skills balance to support various
NASA and commercial space missions.

For the Business Information evaluation, SpaceX received a level of confidence rating of Green.
Strengths included viable capabilities and a creative and marketable business strategy;
significant facility investments; and teaming with experienced and knowledgeable suppliers.
Weaknesses included unclear financial investment in CCDev 2 and correlation between
milestones and stated program priorities is unclear.

ransformational Space Corporation (t/Space

For the Technical Approach evaluation, t/Space received a level of confidence of Red. Strengths
included proposed system’s entry mode; design concept that maximizes abort capability and
minimizes overall weight; proposed systems reduce vehicle complexity; and utilization of
dissimilar redundancy and failure tolerant system. Weaknesses included failure to provide
analysis for off-nominal landing calculations and other FAA license related analyses; insufficient
information to substantiate proposed redundancy of the primary structure and thermal
protection system; unrestrained crew during portions of entry \landing; insufficient detail to
evaluate overall launch vehicle integration; insufficient information on technology readiness
levels, performance specifications, and technical risks of the launch-escape-integral-abort
system; insufficient information to evaluate reusability of the spacecraft; proposed vehicle
recovery system; insufficient information to evaluate overall programmatic and system risks;
insufficient detail on accommodation of de-conditioned crew members during entry and landing;
insufficient detail to evaluate integrated maturation plan; failure to provide concrete S&MA
plans, tasks, processes, analysis, and deliverables to develop safe and reliable crewed spacecraft,
failure to adequately describe association of standard S&MA processes with proposed


Selection Statement
For
Commercial Crew Development Round 2
(Announcement Number NASA-CCDev-2)

On March 25, 2011, along with other senior officials of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA), | met with the Participant Evaluation Panel (PEP) appointed to evaluate
proposals submitted in response to the Commercial Crew Development Round 2 (CCDev 2)
Announcement (Announcement Number NASA-CCDev-2).

I. Background and Evaluation Process

In 2009, NASA began the Commercial Crew Development (CCDev) initiatives to stimulate efforts
within the private sector to develop system concepts and capabilities that could ultimately lead
to the availability of commercial human spaceflight services. NASA is continuing that effort
through a second round of CCDev initiatives in order to further foster activity leading to the
development of orbital commercial Crew Transportation Systems (CTS). Through this CCDev 2
activity, NASA may be able to continue to spur economic growth as capabilities for new space
markets are created, and reduce the gap in U.S. human spaceflight capability.

The Announcement solicited proposals to further advance orbital commercial CTS concepts and
enable significant progress on maturing the design and development of elements of the system,
such as launch vehicles and spacecraft, with the overall objective of accelerating the availability
of U.S. CTS capabilities while ensuring crew and passenger safety. Selected CCDev 2 participants
will receive funded Space Act Agreements under NASA’s Other Transactions Authority within the
National Aeronautics and Space Act, 51 U.S.C. 20101 etseq. NASA is selecting a portfolio of
multiple CCDev 2 agreements that best meet the CCDev 2 goals and objectives within the
available funding. The agreements are expected to result in significant maturation of commercial
CTS capabilities with consideration given to NASA’s draft human certification requirements and
standards or industry equivalent to those requirements and standards. In order to open up the
design trade space, encourage innovations and efficiencies in system design solutions, NASA did
not dictate specific system goals or system concepts. Each participant determined the system
requirements for its proposed concept that best served its target markets.

The Announcement was released on October 25, 2010. It divided the proposals into three
sections with one appendix, all due on December 13, 2010. Section | was an Executive Summary,
Section IJ was the Technical Approach, and Section III required Business Information. The
appendix contained a proposed Space Act agreement. Proposals were received from the
following companies (participants):

alphaSpaces (QSpaces) Orbital Sciences Corporation

Andrews Space Orbital Space Transport, LLC

ATK Aerospace Systems Paragon Space Development Corporation
Blue Origin PlanetSpace, Inc. ‘

The Boeing Company Sierra Nevada Corporation


systems; and safety & mission assurance processes to reduce risks not appropriately associated
with proposed performance milestones or design review milestones.

For the Business Information evaluation, the level of confidence rating remained Yellow. No
new strengths were identified. All weaknesses were fully addressed, except for weaknesses
related to inadequate information about acquisition of hardware, relationship to supplier, and
projected revenues; insufficient detail that stated resources are in place; and unclear source of
CCDev 2 investment.

Orbital Sciences Corporation (OSC)

For the Technical Approach evaluation, the level of confidence rating changed from White to
Green. No new strengths were identified. All weaknesses were fully addressed, except for the
weakness related to an overly optimistic design schedule.

For the Business Information evaluation, the level of confidence rating remained White. There
were no new strengths. All weaknesses were fully addresses, except for the lack of information

on cost and risk assessments of requested government resources.

Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC)

For the Technical Approach evaluation, the level of confidence rating remained White. There are
no new strengths identified. All weaknesses were fully addressed, except for weaknesses related
to little improvement in Technology Readiness Levels during CCDev 2; an overly optimistic
design schedule; failure to identify abort system development as a risk; failure to demonstrate an
effective and integrated S&MA organizational structure; and the proposed timing of S&MA
emphasis and integration.

For the Business Information evaluation, the level of confidence rating changed from White to
Green. There was one new strength identified for demonstrating a history of operational
performance, stable leadership, and a market for its products and services. All weaknesses were
fully addressed.

Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX

For the Technical Approach evaluation, the level of confidence rating changed from White to
Green. There were no new strengths identified. All weaknesses were fully addressed, except for
weaknesses related to a failure to identify long term development risks; an overly optimistic
design schedule; and insufficient information on skills balance to support various NASA and
commercial space missions.

For the Business Information evaluation, the level of confidence rating changed from Green to
Blue. No new strengths were identified. All weaknesses were fully addressed.

12


ATK Aerospace Systems (ATK

For the Technical Approach evaluation, the level of confidence rating changed from Yellow to
Green. There were three new strengths identified for an effective and integrated S&MA
organizational structure; concretely tying S&MA processes to milestone reviews; and a
comprehensive plan of certifying existing space hardware. All weaknesses were fully addressed,
except for providing insufficient details to assess new launch vehicle flight stress environments.

For the Business Information evaluation, the level of confidence rating changed from Yellow to
Green. There was one new strength identified for demonstrating viable capabilities and a
marketable business strategy. All weaknesses were fully addressed.

Blue Origin

For the Technical Approach evaluation, the level of confidence rating changed from Yellow to
White. There was one new strength identified for demonstrating an understanding of NASA's
draft human certification requirements. All weaknesses were fully addressed, except for
insufficient information to evaluate proposed reusability; failure to identify long term
development risks; lack of specificity on maturation of space vehicle design during CCDev 2
timeframe; investments may not accelerate development of a CTS capability; and safety &
mission assurance processes to reduce risks not appropriately associated with proposed
performance milestones or design review milestones.

For the Business Information evaluation, the level of confidence rating changed from White to
Green. No new strengths were identified. All weaknesses were fully addressed, except for a lack
of information on cost and risk assessments of requested government resources.

The Boeing Company (Boeing)

For the Technical Approach evaluation, the level of confidence rating changed from White to
Blue. Three new strengths were identified for reflecting an effective and integrated SQMA
organizational structure; providing detailed analysis and rationale to assess the controllability of
spacecraft with a launch abort system; and for concretely tying S&MA processes to milestone
reviews. All weaknesses were fully addressed, except for a limited on-orbit duration capability.

For the Business Information evaluation, the level of confidence changed from Yellow to Green.
No new strengths were identified. All weaknesses were fully addressed, except for failing to
provide requested pro-forma information.

Excalibur Almaz Incorporated (EAI

For the Technical Approach evaluation, the level of confidence rating changed from Yellow to
White. There was one new strength identified for demonstrating an understanding of NASA’s
draft human certification requirements. All weaknesses were fully addressed, except for
insufficient detail on breadth and depth of engineering and manufacturing experience;
insufficient data on heritage hardware pedigree; insufficient information on the integration of

11


architecture; failure to address integration and human certification of launch vehicle; insufficient
detail to evaluate proposed docking system; insufficient information to evaluate overall
programmatic and system risks approach; insufficient information to support assumptions that
components are based on proven designs; insufficient information to evaluate proposed
maturation schedule with critical subsystem development and integration activities; insufficient
detail to address technical and schedule complexities in integration of spacecraft and launch
vehicle; failure to adequately describe association of standard S&MA processes with proposed
performance milestones or major design milestones; insufficient detail to evaluate abort engine
and overall abort system maturity; and inadequate definition of performance milestone success
criteria.

For the Business Information evaluation, PlanetSpace received a level of confidence rating of
Red. The only strength identified related to experienced and knowledgeable teammates.
Weaknesses included insufficient detail to show available sources of income to implement
proposed business strategy; insufficient information to show financial resources will be available
during CCDev 2; insufficient detail to show foreign and domestic facility integration to meet
proposed launch schedule; lack of information on cost and risk assessments of requested
government resources; and failure to show understanding of FAA commercial space
transportation licensing process.

Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC)

For the Technical Approach evaluation, SNC received a level of confidence of White. Strengths
included significant operational capability of proposed concept; heritage spacecraft design;
ground and flight features reduce operational costs, increase system efficiency, and mitigate risk;
on-orbit flight margin; flexibility for optimizing crew and cargo up-mass and down-mass;
processes for identifying, evaluating, and documenting risks during CCDev 2 and for the overall
program; concept to retire system risks during CCDev 2; thorough and logical maturation plan;
demonstrated understanding of NASA’s draft human certification requirements; dissimilar
redundancy for critical flight phases; and NASA insight into most development activities.
Weaknesses included failure to address the integration or human certification of the launch
vehicle; insufficient information to evaluate spacecraft reusability; failure to identify risks
associated with Centaur modifications; failure to describe subsystem mass margins; failure to
address risks associated with motors; insufficient detail on accommodation of de-conditioned
crew members during entry and landing; little improvement in Technology Readiness Levels
during CCDev 2; overly optimistic design schedule; failure to identify the abort system
development as a risk; failure to demonstrate an effective and integrated S&MA organizational
structure; proposed timing of S&MA emphasis and integration; failure to adequately describe
association of standard S&MA processes with proposed performance milestones or major design
milestones; and failure of proposed performance milestones to clearly demonstrate significant
progress on design and development during CCDev 2.

For the Business Information evaluation, SNC received a level of confidence rating of White.
Strengths included reasonable development and demonstration cost estimates, and teaming with
experienced and knowledgeable suppliers. Weaknesses included lack of relevant human space


submitted to them by NASA, and resolved issues associated with draft Space Act agreements and
their proposed performance milestones. After completion of the due diligence meetings, the PEP
reconvened to modify or amend the consensus evaluation findings based on any new
information obtained that may have impacted the initial evaluation results and assigned final
level of confidence ratings based on the final consensus findings.

In Step 3, the PEP presented to me a summary of the proposal evaluations. This included the
PEP’s analysis and recommendation for selecting one or more of the proposals for award and the
respective amount of NASA contribution to be offered. After selection, the final step of the
competitive process will be to sign the Space Act agreements negotiated with the selected
participant(s).

IL_Initial Evaluation

Eleven proposals passed the initial voting member evaluation screening and were evaluated by
the full evaluation team. Each proposal received two level of confidence ratings, one for the
Technical Approach section and one for the Business Information section, based on the
consensus findings prepared using the distinguishing factors (strengths or weaknesses) in the
proposal.

ATK Aerospace Systems (ATK

For the Technical Approach evaluation, ATK received a level of confidence of Yellow. Strengths
included significant performance capability for a variety of crew capsules and lifting bodies; use
of relatively mature systems to support a range of users; extensive experience in using its risk
management approach; a comprehensive set of maturation plan activities to develop and test
high-risk development areas during CCDev 2; and an understanding of NASA’s draft human
certification requirements. Weaknesses included insufficient details to assess new launch
vehicle flight stress environments; insufficient information about the development and
integration of emergency detection and abort system concepts; insufficient definition of system
level responsibility for integration of a spacecraft with the launch vehicle and ground systems;
unsubstantiated Technology Readiness Level (TRL) for certain components; failure to include
risks related to spacecraft integration during CCDev 2 timeframe; insufficient detail to address
technical and schedule complexities of integrating launch vehicle stages; overly optimistic design
schedule; lack of demonstration of effective and integrated S&MA organizational structure; use
of safety & mission assurance processes to reduce risks not tied to proposed performance
milestones or design review milestones; lack of information to assess validity of integrated Loss
of Crew and Loss of Mission assertion; insufficient data on effort to certify the vehicle for human
space flight; and inadequate definition of performance milestone success criteria.

For the Business Information evaluation, ATK received a level of confidence rating of Yellow.
Strengths included management team with extensive human space flight experience and
extensive in-place labor and facilities. Weaknesses included proposed teaming structure; lack of
information on cost and risk assessments of requested government resources; insufficient
information to demonstrate compliance with the Commercial Space Act and U.S. National Space
Policy.


They both showed significant acceleration of the availability of their CTS concepts by reaching an
approximate PDR level of maturity during CCDev 2, and they demonstrated a strong commitment
to the public-private partnership approach and business considerations. Also, both leveraged
considerable prior development work, thereby reducing risks and providing high confidence in
their system designs.

Boeing proposed a thorough approach and activities for maturing capabilities during the CCDev
2 performance period, increasing confidence the proposed system maturation will accelerate the
overall CTS. They had a very strong technical approach for their system, including an efficient
propulsion system, landing concept, propellant for the crew module, and flexibility for
optimizing crew and cargo up-mass and down-mass . SpaceX provided a comprehensive
description of their methodology behind selecting risks to target during the CCDev 2 timeframe,
increasing the effectiveness of their technical approach. Their CTS includes their spacecraft, and
their Falcon 9 launch vehicle that enables “test-like-you-fly” operations. For these reasons, all
portfolio options that I considered included both SpaceX and Boeing baseline proposals.

Both SpaceX and Boeing proposed capsules as part of their CTS. Given the emphasis on diversity,
I considered it important to have at least one lifting body concept in the portfolio. There are
significant technical challenges associated with lifting bodies that are not present with capsules;
however, lifting bodies offer significant operational capability including cross range
performance, ability to land on multiple runways, lower entry g-forces, and quick crew access
and egress post landing. At this early stage in the development, I felt it was important to have
both lifting bodies and capsules represented in the portfolio.

Both Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC) and Orbital Sciences Corporation proposed lifting bodies
and both were highly rated in terms of their overall color ratings and strengths/weaknesses.
However, SNC scored higher in business considerations and demonstrated a strong commitment
to the public-private partnership associated with the Commercial Crew Program. Also, SNC’s
proposal showed more advancement in their CTS concept by reaching an approximately PDR
level of maturity at the end of CCDev 2 compared to an SDR level for Orbital Sciences. In
addition, SNC’s overall CTS concept included a seven crew seat configuration (as opposed to four
for Orbital Sciences) which provides flexibility for optimizing crew and cargo up-mass and down-
mass by accommodating two to seven crew members and the capability to trade out crew for
cargo, increasing confidence in the effectiveness of the technical approach of SNC’s CTS concept.
Also, Orbital’s proposal featured an Atlas V variant that is one of the more robust Atlas V
configurations, limiting the growth potential of the spacecraft. SNC’s proposal featured a more
modest Atlas V variant allowing for more mass growth, increasing the likelihood of being able to
successfully develop their CTS concept.

The SNC proposal had a significant weakness in its abort system risk. There remained significant
concern on the part of the PEP with respect to the development of appropriate launch abort
systems requirements and launch abort system capabilities. Also, SNC did not appear to
adequately recognize the importance NASA placed on this risk. However, | felt this risk could be
addressed during the development, and given the advantages associated with the SNC proposal
cited above, I more highly rated the SNC proposal than the Orbital Sciences proposal.

45


aspects of the CTS concept’s technical, business, and safety content. For example, there was a
lack of detail regarding the team’s engineering and manufacturing experience to fabricate and
operate the Almaz vehicle, lack of detail about integration of the vehicle, lack of detail about
acquisition of the hardware, and lack of detail about the resources needed for the CCDev 2 work.
I felt this lack of detail increased the risk for enabling a commercial CTS capability. This fact, in
conjunction with the relatively lower ratings, led me to not select Excalibur Almaz for award.

Blue Origin’s proposed concept of flying a moderate lift biconic shape spacecraft offered
significant operational capability, thereby reducing overall risk to the crew and enhancing
mission success. In addition, the strategy of “walk before you run” with suborbital
demonstrations first then orbital demonstrations was realistic and achievable. Also, their
business strategy of focusing on commercial crew first and adding complementing markets (e.g.,
cargo missions) demonstrated their commitment to a commercial CTS capability. Blue Origin
demonstrated realism in future markets through diminished dependency on early revenues for
sustainability, demonstrating commitment to a long-term strategy that was unique among all
proposers. These reasons, along with the weighting for spacecraft, diversity, and business
considerations led me to select Blue Origin for award, but at a reduced funding level from their
baseline proposal.

I felt this portfolio of companies and CTS concepts is the best overall use of the CCDev 2 funding.
Within the selected concepts, there is diversity in spacecraft approaches (two capsules, a lifting
body, and a biconic shape spacecraft) and in the launch vehicles they propose to use. All
proposals showed an understanding of the importance of safety and a commitment to safe
spaceflight. | believe this portfolio will significantly mature the design and development of
system elements and accelerate the availability of CTS capabilities.

In light of the discriminators I have described above, I select the following companies for award
of funded Space Act Agreements under the Commercial Crew Development Round 2 activity in
the following amounts:

Blue Origin: $22,005,000
Boeing: $92,300,000
Sierra Nevada Corporation: $80,000,000
SpaceX: $75,000,000
Fate R.. Wk ie 4 {al 2ou
Philip R. McAlister Date

Selection Authority

17


TGV Rockets, Inc. submitted a proposal that lacked sufficient detail in the Technical Approach
and Business Information sections for the PEP to be able to perform a comprehensive review,
which led the PEP to determine that this proposal failed to meet the intent and goals of the
Announcement.

Spacedesign Corporation submitted a proposal that contained multiple and significant
weaknesses in the Technical Approach and Business Information sections, which presented
significant risk in the completion of the proposed project.

United Space Alliance, LLC submitted a proposal that did not fall within the scope or intent of the
CCDev 2 effort to advance orbital commercial CTS concepts and mature the design and
development of elements of a system such as launch vehicles or spacecraft during the CCDev 2
timeframe, and withdrew its proposal on March 28, 2011.

The PEP members and the rest of the evaluation team then read each proposal not previously
eliminated by the voting members of the PEP. Evaluators identified the distinguishing factors of
each proposal, which were documented as findings of strengths and weaknesses. The Business
Information and Technical Approach team leads each convened a meeting of the evaluation team
to review all findings in their respective areas, and prepared team findings representing their
respective areas along with a recommended level of confidence rating for that area based upon
the team findings. The team leads then presented the proposed team findings and color rating
recommendations for their respective areas to the PEP, which, through consensus, finalized the
findings and determined the level of confidence ratings to be applied to the Technical Approach
and Business Information sections for each proposal.

There are five Level of Confidence color ratings:

Blue: Very High Level of Confidence - The proposal section is very highly effective and there is a
very high likelihood of successful execution.

Green: High Level of Confidence - The proposal section is highly effective and there is at least a
high likelihood of successful execution.

White: Moderate Level of Confidence - The proposal section is moderately effective and there is
at least a moderate likelihood of successful execution.

Yellow: Low Level of Confidence - The proposal section has low effectiveness or there is a low
likelihood of successful execution.

Red: Very Low Level of Confidence - The proposal section has very low effectiveness or there is
a very low likelihood of successful execution.

After all stand alone evaluations were completed, the PEP determined the proposals most
favorably evaluated as candidates for further due diligence. All other proposals received no
further evaluation at this point but their evaluation results were presented to me during Step 3,
Portfolio Selection.

In Step 2, the PEP conducted face-to-face due diligence meetings with participants whose
proposals were most favorably evaluated. During these meetings, participants presented their
overall CCDev proposed approach, responded to the initial evaluation findings and questions


Excalibur Almaz Incorporated Spacedesign Corporation

ILC Dover Space Exploration Technologies Corporation
Innovative Space Propulsion Systems, LLC TGV Rockets, Inc.

KT Engineering Transformational Space Corporation
Oceaneering International, Inc. United Launch Alliance , LLC

Orbital Outfitters United Space Alliance , LLC

Upon receipt, the Agreements Officer conducted an acceptance screening to confirm that each
proposal complied with the proposal instructions and met the intent of the requirements and
goals of the Announcement.

The proposal from alphaSpaces did not pass the acceptance screening because it failed to comply
with the proposal instructions in the Announcement and was, therefore, not reviewed by the
voting members.

The evaluation and selection were conducted using a four-step process.

Step 1 - Initial Evaluation

Step 2 - Due Diligence

Step 3 - Portfolio Selection

Step 4 ~ Finalize Space Act Agreements

Step 1 was an evaluation of each proposal that passed the acceptance screening and on its
Business Information and Technical Approach sections on a stand-alone basis without
comparison to other proposals. The voting members of the Participant Evaluation Panel (PEP)
first read each proposal to determine whether it met the intent of the requirements and goals of
the Announcement. If, after reading the entire proposal, it determined that the proposal failed to
meet the intent of the Announcement in either the Technical Approach or Business Information
sections, then it received a red level of confidence rating for that section. Proposals that received
a red rating in either Business Information or Technical Approach were eliminated from further
evaluation.

Based on the voting members’ review, the following ten proposals were eliminated from further
evaluation:

Andrews Space; ILC Dover; Innovative Space Propulsion Systems, LLC; Oceaneering
International, Inc.; Orbital Outfitters; and Paragon Space Development Corporation submitted
proposals which described development of lower level subsystems, but failed to show solid
commitments from element providers to confirm how the participant’s lower level subsystem is
connected to or would accelerate the availability of an identified element, either spacecraft or
launch vehicle, of a CTS concept.

KT Engineering submitted a proposal that was not found to accelerate the development of a
commercial crew transportation concept within the timeframe of the CCDev 2 Space Act
agreement. 7


For the Technical Approach evaluation, the level of confidence rating remained White. There
was one new strength identified for reflecting an effective and integrated S&MA organizational
structure. All weaknesses were fully addressed, except for a lack of definition of critical path to
an initial launch capability and correlation to CCDev 2 efforts, and failure to adequately describe
the association of standard S&MA processes with proposed performance milestones or major
design milestones.

For the Business Information evaluation, the level of confidence rating remained White. No new
strengths were identified. All weaknesses were fully addressed, except for inadequate
description of commercial space transportation markets.

After resolution of issues during due diligence, all eight companies submitted acceptable draft
Space Act agreements.

IV. Portfolio Selection Decision

Following the presentation by the PEP, | fully considered the findings presented to me, as well as
the information | gained from reading all the proposals, and held an executive session with my
advisors to discuss the evaluation results. | asked the opinion of the advisors present and asked
for their comments, objections, or concerns with the materials presented. Following this
discussion, I compared the proposals against one another to select a portfolio of approaches that
best meets the objectives of the CCDev 2 activity, as stated in the Announcement. | explain the
discriminating factors and the significance of those discriminators in my selection decision, as
follows:

The goal of CCDev 2 is to accelerate the development and availability of U.S. commercial crew
space transportation systems by enabling significant progress on maturing the design and
development of elements of the system, such as launch vehicles and spacecraft, while ensuring
crew and passenger safety. In accordance with the evaluation plan, I considered which proposals
had the most effective approach to accomplish this goal and the highest likelihood of successfully
executing the proposed approach.

I paid attention to the overall final color ratings the PEP gave to each proposal as an indicator of
the proposal’s effectiveness and successful implementation. I noted that two proposals received
the highest level of confidence color rating (blue) for either the technical or business approach,
and several others were rated in the next highest color ratings (green or white) in one or both
evaluation criteria. However, these ratings were only indicators and did not form the sole basis
of my decision.

I considered how far each company would progress technically under its proposed effort,
specifically the degree to which each company would significantly accelerate development of its
own concept and accelerate the availability of a U.S. commercial crew transportation system. |
also considered the viability of the company’s business approach to support and carry out its
technical development plan. Then I considered which portfolio of proposals would best meet the
goal of the CCDev 2 program within the available total funding. °

13


However, I felt that the proposed baseline level of investment in SNC’s concept at this stage was
not the most effective use of the limited funding available for the CCDev 2 effort. As each of the
participants in due.diligence was requested to do, SNC proposed alternate, prioritized milestones
that featured a reduced government investment and maintained significant acceleration of their
CTS concept. Thus, I selected this option for award.

The remaining participants after due diligence were: ATK Aerospace, Blue Origin, Excalibur
Almaz, and United Launch Alliance (ULA). All of the remaining proposers included at least one
alternate milestone proposal that was consistent with NASA’s remaining funding.

ULA’s proposal used existing flight proven vehicles and infrastructure, reducing overall design
risk. It also proposed developing an emergency detection system that could be used on different
launchers and interface with a range of spacecraft. However, ULA’s work content on their
existing launch vehicles was not on the critical path for any CTS systems. Thus, it did not
accelerate the availability of U.S. CTS capabilities which was a primary goal of the
Announcement. In addition, ULA did not adequately describe the commercial market(s) to which
it will provide products and services and the plan for marketing and selling company products
and services, all key business considerations. Thus, ULA’s proposal was not selected.

ATK’s proposal was highly rated by the PEP. The company significantly upgraded the quality of
their proposal during due diligence demonstrating a responsiveness and technical depth that !
valued. ATK proposed advancing the development of a new launch vehicle which they stated
could be used by a variety of spacecraft. However, a significant weakness was the lack of a
linkage to any spacecraft. ATK did not have any commitments, Memoranda of Understanding, or
any partnership details from any spacecraft developer, nor did any spacecraft developer include
the Liberty vehicle in their baseline CTS configurations. This was a significant concern on my
part as NASA could fund the Liberty all the way through the development phase and there would
be the possibility that no spacecraft developer would select that launch vehicle as part of its CTS
design, thereby not advancing an orbital CTS concept which was a key goal of the Announcement.

Also, ATK did not provide sufficient details to assess launch vehicle environments on their
proposed upper stage or at the crewed spacecraft interface. These environments include areas
like coupled loads, staging environments and abort scenarios. Although ATK provided a solid
technical approach, their details on environments did not provide me with enough confidence in
accelerating this launch vehicle for use with a variety of different crewed spacecraft. | felt it
would be a more effective use of the limited CCDev 2 funds to select an additional spacecraft
concept in the portfolio. For these reasons, ATK was not selected.

Excalibur Almaz’s proposal leveraged an existing crew vehicle structure from the heritage Almaz
program which has a long test history; increasing confidence that the concept will accelerate
commercial CTS capabilities. It was an innovative and unique approach, and the proposal
provided a comprehensive description of their process to evaluate and document overall
program/vehicle risks. However, the Excalibur Almaz proposal was the lowest rated proposal of
the eight companies selected for due diligence and it was the only one that received a yellow
rating (for Business Considerations). In addition, there was a consistent theme in many of the
proposal’s weaknesses, which was that the proposal lacked sufficient detail to determine crucial

16