I just ended a telecon with Bill Gerstenmaier, who announced that Commercial Crew is going to stick with Space Act Agreements for the next phase. Here are my raw notes:

Changed approach, doing Space Act Agreements for next phase. Goal is to get CC capability ASAP for ISS, in light of tight budget think that Space Act provides the best means of moving forward quickly for now.

Alan Boyle: Did you consult with commercial providers? No. Had planned Firm Fixed Price, but too much budget uncertainty to move forward, Space Act provides a lot more flexibility for milestones, to allow as much progress as possible for next 21 months. Space Act don’t allow as much technical involvement by NASA, but allows providers to move forward to Critical Design Review. Phase originally schedule for RFP on Monday, selection and award next summer. Think that now SAA’s will be in place next summer, to go into 2014. Period of performance will vary with agreement, but expect to get to critical design that allows certification of FFP.

Want to carry a minimum of two providers through this period, and hopefully more, and the only way to do it with existing funds is SAA. Does increase technical risk that they won’t get exactly what they want.

Ken Chang: Still capability in 2016? Think it’s moved into 2017, because didn’t get sufficient funding in 2012. Be close to CDR with SAA, but will have to think about how to transition to certification and service phase.

Morring: Will have to procure more Soyuz seats, and another waiver of INKSNA. Has it gone up to the Hill yet, and how many more seats? Congress understands the position, will take waiver issue forward as needed, more seat purchases needed in 2013. Current contract runs out in Spring of 2016.

Cowing: Will contractors be allowed/encouraged to be more innovative in risk reduction? Basic intent provided, and providers offer solutions, up to them to be creative and innovative.

Did they make decision on their own, or was this a result of the complaints from industry? On their own, driven by budget uncertainty, contractors seemed happy to do FAR contracts.

Think can get to CDR level, depending on how many providers they continue to carry.

Certification requirements well along and have been released, for both safety and mission success. No TBDs.

Seth Borenstein, AP: Does switch from RFP to Space Act Agreement change the amount or timing of the funding? They’re appreciative of getting the 406M in 2012, more than they’ve had in the past. Timing is up to contractors and their milestones, so can’t define funding profile for space acts right now. Less certainty of schedule with Space Act, but more flexibility with budget.

Denise Chow: Concerned that SAA will make certification process longer? Potentially has that capability, but requirements are out there, and providers should know pretty clearly what’s being asked for. Some risk that they wont get exactly what is anticipated, but it’s mitigated somewhat by the requirements, as well as competition.

Jeff Foust: Does this take NASA as far as it can go on SAA, or is there some flexibility to use them for later phases? When there is a need for actual transportation services to ISS, they’ll need a contract. Probably as far as they’ll go with them, but there may be some limited possibilities.

Klotz: why is this a good use of government funds when so many people are putting in their own private money? Expecting some share with contractors, are providing intellectual property, they have ability to use for transportation to other facilities. Space Act activity actually increases desire for them to spend their own money. Government investment helps insure that capability is developed in a timely manner.

[Update a while later]

Clark Lindsey took notes, too.

[Update late morning]

Jeff Foust has the story now.