Embedded Files
Project Apollo- Technical evaluation of contractor proposals
Project Apollo- Technical evaluation of contractor proposals
Acquired from Space Walk of Fame Auction
Acquired from Space Walk of Fame Auction
Date acquired 25th Aug 2019
Date acquired 25th Aug 2019
Collection # -TSM 26
Collection # -TSM 26
When NASA wanted a launch vehicle stage or a spacecraft manufacturing by industry contractors, they would invite the companies to produce a technical proposal. NASA would then evaluate the proposals, giving each a score. The proposal with the highest score would then be duly awarded the contract. This document describes how the evaluation boards and committees should organise them selves and how they should “score” the technical proposals.
When NASA wanted a launch vehicle stage or a spacecraft manufacturing by industry contractors, they would invite the companies to produce a technical proposal. NASA would then evaluate the proposals, giving each a score. The proposal with the highest score would then be duly awarded the contract. This document describes how the evaluation boards and committees should organise them selves and how they should “score” the technical proposals.
Also included are copy Memorandums that cover invitations to proposed members of evaluation boards.
Also included are copy Memorandums that cover invitations to proposed members of evaluation boards.
In the last appendix there is a list of members appointed to various panels, and from the Space task group the astronaut office was represented by Wally Schirra, Gus Grissom, and Deke Slayton.
In the last appendix there is a list of members appointed to various panels, and from the Space task group the astronaut office was represented by Wally Schirra, Gus Grissom, and Deke Slayton.
For anyone with an interest in space history this document gives a very interesting snapshot of how NASA went about deciding who would build their moon rockets for them.
For anyone with an interest in space history this document gives a very interesting snapshot of how NASA went about deciding who would build their moon rockets for them.
One interesting aside to this process is that on one famous occasion the proposal with the highest score did not get awarded the contract. Below is n excerpt from the book Chariots for Apollo
One interesting aside to this process is that on one famous occasion the proposal with the highest score did not get awarded the contract. Below is n excerpt from the book Chariots for Apollo
Several weeks of intensive study followed, as the assessment teams made their rankings of the proposals. Submitted on 24 November 1961, the report of the Source Evaluation Board summarized the scoring by the assessors and evaluators:
Several weeks of intensive study followed, as the assessment teams made their rankings of the proposals. Submitted on 24 November 1961, the report of the Source Evaluation Board summarized the scoring by the assessors and evaluators:
SEB Ratings of Apollo Spacecraft Proposals by Major Area
SEB Ratings of Apollo Spacecraft Proposals by Major Area
(Marks out of 10) Technical Technical
Approach Qualification Business
(30%) (30%) (40%)
Martin Co. 5.58 6.63 8.09
General Dynamics Astronautics 5.27 5.35 8.52
North American Aviation 5.09 6.66 7.59
General Electric Co. 5.16 5.60 7.99
McDonnell Aircraft Corp. 5.53 5.67 7.62
This step led to a summary rating, with Martin scoring 6.9, General Dynamics tied with North American at 6.6, and General Electric matched with McDonnell at 6.4 for final grades. The board was unequivocal in its final recommendation:
This step led to a summary rating, with Martin scoring 6.9, General Dynamics tied with North American at 6.6, and General Electric matched with McDonnell at 6.4 for final grades. The board was unequivocal in its final recommendation:
The Martin Company is considered the outstanding source for the Apollo prime contractor. Martin not only rated first in Technical Approach, a very close second in Technical Qualification, and second in Business Management, but also stood up well under further scrutiny of the board.
The Martin Company is considered the outstanding source for the Apollo prime contractor. Martin not only rated first in Technical Approach, a very close second in Technical Qualification, and second in Business Management, but also stood up well under further scrutiny of the board.
If Martin were not selected, however, the board suggested North American as the most desirable alternative.
If Martin were not selected, however, the board suggested North American as the most desirable alternative.
North American Aviation [NAA] . . . rated highest of all proposers in the major area of Technical Qualifications. North American's pertinent experience consisting of the X-15, Navajo, and Hound Dog coupled with an outstanding performance in the development of manned aircraft (F-100 and F-86) resulted in it[s] being the highest rated in this area. The lead personnel proposed showed a strong background in development projects and were judged to be the best of any proposed. Like Martin, NAA proposed a project managed by a single prime contractor with subsystems obtained by subcontracting, which also had the good features described for the Martin proposal. Their project organization, however, did not enjoy quite as strong a position within the corporate structure as Martin's did. The high Technical Qualification rating resulting from these features of the proposal was therefore high enough to give North American a rating of second in the total Technical Evaluation although its detailed Technical Approach was assessed as the weakest submitted. This relative weakness might be attributed to the advantage of the McDonnell Aircraft Corporation's Mercury experience, and the other three proposers' experience on the Apollo study contracts. The Source Evaluation Board is convinced that NAA is well qualified to carry out the assignment of Apollo prime contractor and that the shortcomings in its proposal could be rectified through further design effort on their part. North American submitted a low cost estimate which, however, contained a number of discrepancies. North American's cost history was evaluated as the best.28
North American Aviation [NAA] . . . rated highest of all proposers in the major area of Technical Qualifications. North American's pertinent experience consisting of the X-15, Navajo, and Hound Dog coupled with an outstanding performance in the development of manned aircraft (F-100 and F-86) resulted in it[s] being the highest rated in this area. The lead personnel proposed showed a strong background in development projects and were judged to be the best of any proposed. Like Martin, NAA proposed a project managed by a single prime contractor with subsystems obtained by subcontracting, which also had the good features described for the Martin proposal. Their project organization, however, did not enjoy quite as strong a position within the corporate structure as Martin's did. The high Technical Qualification rating resulting from these features of the proposal was therefore high enough to give North American a rating of second in the total Technical Evaluation although its detailed Technical Approach was assessed as the weakest submitted. This relative weakness might be attributed to the advantage of the McDonnell Aircraft Corporation's Mercury experience, and the other three proposers' experience on the Apollo study contracts. The Source Evaluation Board is convinced that NAA is well qualified to carry out the assignment of Apollo prime contractor and that the shortcomings in its proposal could be rectified through further design effort on their part. North American submitted a low cost estimate which, however, contained a number of discrepancies. North American's cost history was evaluated as the best.28
Word leaked out prematurely to Martin that it had scored highest in the evaluations. After two years of planning and five weeks of waiting, the Martin employees were informed over the public address system on 27 November 1961 that they had won the contest to build the moonship. The next day they learned the truth.29
Word leaked out prematurely to Martin that it had scored highest in the evaluations. After two years of planning and five weeks of waiting, the Martin employees were informed over the public address system on 27 November 1961 that they had won the contest to build the moonship. The next day they learned the truth.29
North American won the spacecraft development sweepstakes. Webb, Dryden, and Seamans apparently chose the company with the longest record of close association with NACA-NASA and the most straightforward advance into space flight. The decision would have to be defended before Congress and would be the cause of some anguish later.30 When it was announced on 28 November, shouts of joy rang through the plant at Downey, California, as John W. Paup broke the news over the "squawk box."31
North American won the spacecraft development sweepstakes. Webb, Dryden, and Seamans apparently chose the company with the longest record of close association with NACA-NASA and the most straightforward advance into space flight. The decision would have to be defended before Congress and would be the cause of some anguish later.30 When it was announced on 28 November, shouts of joy rang through the plant at Downey, California, as John W. Paup broke the news over the "squawk box."31
Google Sites
Report abuse