Launch services provider SpaceX is filing a legal challenge against the US Air Force over its latest Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) contract with United Launch Alliance (ULA).
SpaceX claims that the long-term contract was granted to ULA on a…
Launch services provider SpaceX is filing a legal challenge against the US Air Force over its latest Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) contract with United Launch Alliance (ULA).
SpaceX claims that the long-term contract was granted to ULA on a sole-source basis without any competition from other launch providers. It is seeking the right to compete for some of these same launches.
Commenting on the lawsuit, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk said: “This exclusive deal unnecessarily costs US taxpayers billions of dollars and defers meaningful free competition for years to come. We are simply asking that SpaceX and any other qualified domestic launch providers be allowed to compete in the EELV programme for any and all missions that they could launch.”
EELV is the fourth largest procurement programme in the entire Department of Defense (DOD) budget and, according to SpaceX, has been plagued by significant and sustained cost breaches. This latest contract guarantees the purchase of 36 rocket cores from ULA to be used in national security launches.
SpaceX claims that each launch by ULA costs American taxpayers roughly US$400m per mission – four times as much as a launch by SpaceX.
Musk also argues that by selecting ULA for the EELV contract the US Air Force is indirectly funding the Russian Federation. He points out that ULA’s Atlas V rocket uses the RD-180 engine, which is produced by state-owned NPO Energomash.
The US Air Force has yet to release a formal statement on the legal challenge, while ULA, a joint venture between Boeing and Lockheed Martin, did not respond to press enquiries.
In early March, ULA CEO Michael Gass spoke to the Subcommittee on Defense, Committee on Appropriations of the US Senate about the EELV contract.
He stated: “Looking forward, the EELV programme is entering a new era. The Air Force’s new acquisition strategy aims to maintain reliability and stabilise the industrial base, while reducing costs and introducing competition. We welcome the new strategy, as the previous approach of buying rockets one-at-a-time was highly inefficient and costly.
“The Air Force implemented the first phase of the new strategy with a block-buy commitment which will save several billions of dollars over the next five years.
“The next phase of the Air Force strategy is to introduce competition. I believe there are substantive questions about how EELV competitions will be structured to ensure the competition is fair and open and whether it will actually deliver savings to our nation.
“Ultimately, the central question is whether savings from competition will be sufficient to offset the cost of duplicating existing capabilities. ULA was formed to enable assured access to space with two separate launch systems, with recognition that the market demand was insufficient to sustain two competitors. We went from two competing teams with redundant and underutilised infrastructure to one team that has delivered the expected savings of this consolidation.”
The claim is being filed with the United States Court of Federal Claims in Washington, DC.
* Update 30 April 2014 – ULA banned from buying Russian engines
Judge Susan Braden of the federal claims court issued an injunction on Wednesday that bans ULA from buying further engines from NPO Energomash in an early victory for SpaceX.
ULA general counsel Kevin MacCary said the group is “deeply concerned” with the ruling and is working with the Department of Justice to remove the ban.
“Just like ULA, NASA and numerous other companies lawfully conduct business with the same Russian company, other Russia state-owned industries, and Russian Federation agencies,” said MacCary.
“This opportunistic action by SpaceX appears to be an attempt to circumvent the requirements imposed on those who seek to meet the challenging launch needs of the nation and to avoid having to follow the rules, regulations and standards expected of a company entrusted to support our nation’s most sensitive missions.”
