[dkbrk]

> Lets not go overboard with the claims we make about government contracting.

That's more or less true though?

There's no need to debate semantics when the criteria NASA used are very clearly laid out in the source selection statement [0]. It is plain that SpaceX was selected because it met the technical requirements, provided the best value for the government, and fit within NASA's budget for the program (indeed, was the only proposal that did so).

There's also the GAO report which more or less says the same thing with more detail and confirms NASA's judgement [1].

And, I'm no expert on contracting, but it is my understanding that "meeting requirements" and "achieving the best value" are criteria that are supposed to underpin all government contracts, not something unique to that particular contract.

[0]: https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/option-a-sou...

[1]: https://www.gao.gov/assets/b-419783.pdf

[panick21_]

> That's more or less true though?

No it isn't. It was done correctly in this case. But if you study the history of NASA and DoD contracting the idea that they always perfectly evaluate is nonsense.

Literally during the very selection process you talk about, a NASA employ was fired because he tried to give Boeing an unfair advantage. How many times in history was this not caught?

Often the selection documents aren't public. The idea that lobbying and politics have no influence of government selection is just being naive.

Just recently in commercial Crew Starliner was selected over Dreamchaser. Despite Dreamchaser being considerably cheaper, and offering much more utility. NASA just assumed that Starliner would be done fast because it was Boeing. The reality many believe without Boeing CommercialCrew would have failed.

We can go threw history, as far back as you like. The Supersonic transport, you basically had Boeing proposing an absurdly complex incredibly ambitious design, despite being the company with the least amount of experience. They were selected despite the other projects being much more reasonable and much cheaper.

[bumby]

>understanding that "meeting requirements" and "achieving the best value"

These can often be at odds. It is surprisingly difficult to award a govt contract under the guise that it provides better value (and there are specific contract mechanisms to that effect). However, from a contracting officer's perspective, it can be riskier (to them personally, even if it's less risky to the taxpayer). The govt also has other goals, like reducing the risk of putting all their eggs into one contractor's basket. All this to say, there are enough competing aspects to undermine a claim that "value" is baked into the primary goals of every contract.