Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
fence preparations
subcommittee restart a minute or two earlier
early which is unprecedented the summit because we have
vote scheduled on internet is much testimony as possible
before we might have to break for a vote should that occurrence
arise soon so I make my opening statement I want to acknowledge at the
beginning
the tunes and cochran's Natalie known as lead at this point I'm storm
minute or two in advance today the defense subcommittee will receive
testimony on national security space launches with a focus on the involved
expendable
launch vehicle or the EL the program
are questions expose some core trade-offs and friends policy and
highlights
several challenges we face as a nation what is the best use
of taxpayers money how do we promote in reward
innovation how we safeguard the viability of our industrial base
how do we protect our competitive edge against %uh the nation's
will return to these questions and many others throughout the years we review
the president's fiscal year 2015 defense budget
which we receive just this week today we discuss the EO the program
which was created almost twenty years ago when the cost
and risks launching satellites we're outta control
EL the mission launchers permissions
launched the most important satellites developed by the Air Force
National Reconnaissance Office in the Navy not to mention nasa
in a few fewer number of commercial customers
the program's been extremely successful
in watching satellites that cost US taxpayers
literally billions of dollars the safety record
the it was fun I'm done before Rockets made by the United Launch Alliance
is remarkable but we do have some concerns
but the acquisition strategy and cost and future
other program from 2011 to 2014
the amount the Air Force budgeted for an average of six satellite launches per
year
group by 60 percent in a three year period
there many answers as to why the program became more expensive but the important
question is
what should we do about it over the past three years the air force is trying to
control cost
by stabilizing you all a production with a block by
36 rockets really while fostering competition from new entrants such as
SpaceX
the subcommittee needs to better understand the cost to the current
program
how to ensure that competition is fair and presents the best best value to the
government
and whether we need to do more to ensure that we can deliver satellites
on orbit in the most efficient and affordable manner these decisions on how
to purchase access to space could have lessons that are
applicable to many other defense capabilities could the pentagon learn to
live with only one major supplier rockets by better managing that
industrial capability
was more buying and the negotiating or should the Department France be moved be
more forward leaning
in a brace companies the challenge the rules on how we normally run defense
programs
has been the general practice the appropriations committee to direct
questions about acquisition programs
to the government officials responsible for the use of taxpayer money
today were taken a different approach by going into the details at the EO the
program
with the two companies most involved in the upcoming competition
as well as to distinguish experts in space acquisitions
their views and insights on the EO the program will inform the subcommittee's
deliberations
on the fiscal year 2015 budget request and also shape
are thinking about how the department friends can best maintain access
to space in a fiscally constrained environment and then welcome our
witnesses Christina Chapman
director acquisition sourcing management that the Government Accountability
Office
Michael gas president and CEO of United Launch Alliance
the lawn musk CEO and chief designer
Space Exploration Technologies doctor scott pace
director the space policy institute at the Elliott School of International
Affairs
George Washington University I mean *** the
witnesses to provide their five min opening statements
but I note the presence love the ranking member
the full Appropriations Committee senator shelby of alabama and I'd like
to give you an opportunity if you wish
for opening statement chairman thank you very much I will try to be brief because
we have a distinguished panel here
up delivering national security satellites safely
to orbit is one of my most important national security
missions this requirement is precisely well as a partner to fears
focuses all mission success and reliability
India while the x-men mobile launch vehicle or
what we call he the program
this focus in the worker the L the sole-source contractor
the United Launch Alliance has resulted in sixty eight consecutive
successful mission 68 success
consecutive successful missions I recognizes
achieve not just as a senator from Alabama where
you LA pro what you LA performs is engines and we were
but as someone who is white said Finn spirits industry
for decades and knows that a 100 percent success rate
is no small feat as a department and fierce moves forward with a new
acquisition strategy for the EL the program
I believe we must ensure that the program's record of success
is maintain much of today's discussion
will focus on competition and I agree the competition typically
results in better quality and lower price contracts
but the large market is not typical is limited to me in it is brain
by government industrial policies and while the goal of competition is to
lower the cost have access to space
which i think is good commander the need to maintain performance and reliability
such as we have today competition may not actual results
in a price reduction for the federal government I believe that much for the
call sis
Coast associated with the EL the program today
can be attributed to the Department of Defense decisions
about the structure the program including the
practice a purchase who won launch vehicle at the time
rather than lack of competition simply modify and his band strategy alone in
moving into a new block by approach
has already resulted in significant savings
and will ultimately say be saving billions of dollars
the air force for example is estimated 4.4 billion savings so for
the last your chipper taxpayer resources is situated to in all government
programs
and oftentimes competition is key in this case
the safety and security of our national security payloads
is paramount I'm not convinced yet than a wholesale change
in the EL the program is the answer we witnessed significant
results from a manner modification to purchase in practice
practices in the existing program but I do look forward to the testimony by
witnesses on the role of competition in this unique market
an exchange as to why a sea change in the program is necessary
to achieve che savings if it is thank you mister chairman
thanks very much senator shelby and now will
ever witnesses give an opening statement
they're written statement will be made par to the record if they'll take five
or six minutes to
summarize it we can then open it to questions and first-person
test by Christina chaplain as I mentioned director back position
sourcing management at the Government Accountability Office
which is done a comprehensive review love this issue
which I commend to my colleagues and those who are following the stupid
miss chapman please proceed mister chairman thank you for inviting me today
I am very pleased to be here
to discuss the ER the program the program itself has been through
different contract arrangements an acquisition strategies
there was competition at the beginning of the program with the a move
ultimately slept in one company
the government opted to keep two companies based on the assumption that
there'd be a surge
in commercial demand that would allow the government to benefit from lower
costs
fixed price contracts were used also in early
early part of the program and the government was able to benefit from
prices that were lower
because the company's purchase items involve
he items and blog in anticipation and the predicted high demand that the
commercial market
after the commercial market did not materialize as expected however
there were several significant changes to suppliers merged into one
the government began using a fixed price contract to acquire launch services
and a cost type contract to acquire the capability to launch that hardware
in view launch failures that occurred in late nineteen nineties with the Heritage
lunch program
the government place must have its focus on mission success
and not as much on controlling costs and as you mentioned there has been a good
record of success in STEM
in 2011 the Air Force unblock marked on the back by strategy in anticipation
a significant price increases however the j.o found that the government did
not have the knowledge it needed
to make such a significant commitment particularly with respect to program
costs and the launch industrial base
at the time they're awesome mixed views with India the about the value and
viability
to introduce competition help lower prices the deity alternately set out to
do sell
since our 2011 report beauty is made strides
gaining knowledge about costs and other issues surrounding me lb
and is achieved significant savings in the negotiating the BOC by
there may be a debate as to the validity in extend to the savings
but we do know that the deer deeper for me now sees and the studies
the better-armed it for negotiations further the program now benefits from
honorable business systems in greater oversight did he deserves
much credit for these efforts there are also significant positive changes in the
new contract
but the basic wave occurring on services remain the same
is a fixed price arrangement for the vehicles themselves
and the cost arrangement for the capability
once the vehicles which includes things like systems engineering and integration
is important to keep in mind that the capability contract maximizes the
government's flexibility
which is beneficial when they're in plays and satellite deliveries
the block by contractors for 35 rocky Kors NDD plans to compete up to 14 Kors
starting as early as 2015
their number wasted a good run this competition we looked at two ways
at each end of the spectrum for some recent work we did for the congress
when is the contract similar to the way currently contracts with you LA
the others to follow commercial approach my statement details the benefits and
challenges about
in short the deity contract similar to the way contracts with you LA
dear they could retain inside in the contractor class: the pricing data
which would lend itself to a better bargaining position future
negotiations but this approach can also add commas
for the new entrants including on Costco's porch
portion and the proposals for instance would require them to develop announced
on the business systems to fulfil government data requirements
it do you defied a commercial a purge it could have an avenue to decrease lunch
prizes
and increase efficiencies I would also likely lose access to content to custom
pricing data
and some flexibility mean rescheduling launches and satellites
delivery skip we do not recommend an approach
it is not jus wanna do so and there are other possible approaches
the go-live introducing competition has been achieved the competitors may prefer
different paths
the fact is a deity will need to weigh as it makes its choice likely include
the need to maintain a high degree of reliability as a satellites been
launched are expensive in our vital to national security
the need for flexibility in launches the importance of retaining custom pricing
data
the need to keep costs down and considerations about the future
government's demand from on services this concludes my statement and I'm
happy to answer any questions you have
thanks very much miss chapman we will have some questions but next we're going
to hear from Michael gas president CEO
United Launch Alliance just cast chairman Durban
ranking member cochran members of the subcommittee
thank you for the opportunity to appear today to talk about the delv program
and the future of space launch on behalf for the men and women a United Launch
Alliance
any entire perv supply team we are honored
to be entrusted with the responsibility up safely
delivering critical national security capabilities to orbit
you allay also supports customers outside national security
for nasa we've launched science missions to the Moon mercury
Jupiter and Pluto and even sent the Rovers on to mars
our customers extend beyond the government to commercial sector
with nine commercial missions to date and several more on the manifest
I'm also pleased to report that you will in the government team
have consistently delivered a hundred percent mission success
over 68 time since the inception of the program
delivering over sixty billion dollars taxpayer-funded satellites
we are currently a temple the launch 1 launch
every month you always at least five adult 24
are the most powerful and most reliable rockets in the world
they are the only rockets that fully meet the unique needs
the national security community the Air Force he'll be program was openly and
fairly compete in the late 1990s
with the unique active acquisition strategy at the time
that required significant up-front investment by industry
lockheed-martin that was and bones Delta products with the winners have that
competition
over the past 17 year the programs continue to deliver
meeting the needs of our nation affectively officially
the EO be programs entering a newer
the Air Force new acquisition strategy aims to maintain reliability and
stabilize the industrial base
while reducing costs and potentially read introducing competition
the new strategy is a welcome improvement from the highly inefficient
and costly approach by rockets one at a time
the next phase of the airport strategy is to reintroduce competition
I believe they're important questions about how he lb competitions will be
structured
to ensure they are fair and open and where the competition will actually save
is a group that it seems that has promised ultimately the central question
as well as savings from competition will be sufficient
to offset the cost the duplicating existing capabilities
you lay was formed to enable short-axis to space with two separate launch
systems
with the recognition the market damp demand was insufficient to sustain two
companies
we went from two competing teams and redone didn't
under hewlett underutilized infrastructure 21 team
then succeeded the savings up consolidation
expectations looking to the future
you will a is investing in new technology and concepts to make our
products better
and more formal we're investing in internal funds to develop a capability
launched to GPS satellites at once
cutting launch cost almost in half you lay along with our government customers
is reviewing
every requirement and every process to eliminate
any unnecessary or inefficient elements
you lay also is aggressively expanding its customer base
both at nasa and the commercial sector with additional launches because
improved utilization of the fixed infrastructure
improved the cost for all customers you lay in our industry partners are working
closely with nasa Space Launch System
and other DOD programs to find opportunities to improve product designs
and efficiently utilizing existing industrial base
infrastructure lower the cost for all programs
on a personal note I've been in this business for 35 years
I work with the government every imaginable approach to buying launch
services
from the traditional DOD contracting approaches to the commercial approaches
from Brian rockets and blocks to buying them individually
I've also worked extensively in the international commercial sectors
I was there in the 1990s when the commercial demand for launch
was projected to be dozens launches per year
only to have the protect projected commercial demand
evaporate overnight. I believe leveraging the demanded the commercial
sector
this mock but relying on commercial demand to enable national security
carries huge risks both the rocket supplier
and to its government customers
I've also experience some launch industries darkest days
such as in the late 1990s prior to the eel be program
when US suffered a series of six major launch failures over a 10-month period
those losses total billions of dollars and were harsh reminder that launches
risky
an extremely unforgiving it's difficult to overemphasize lawsuit national
security
those values course I believe the impressive successes which used on the
email the stem from the difficult lessons learned from those values
these lessons include sustaining a laser focus on technical record
any importance open and transparent relationship with our government
customers
and the acquisition strategies the line with customers priorities
in summary I believe delivered GOP program has been a major success
for the nation we will continue to provide the short axis the nation needs
to deliver critical capabilities
to orbit reliably and on schedule we look forward to working with our
government customers
to further drive down costs without compromising
reliability and readiness thank you for the opportunity to look forward to
questions
thanks must cast yuan Musk CEO and chief designer Space Exploration Technologies
the closures
in German am term in them
was chairman making him a *** members with me thank you for having me here
today
I SpaceX was was founded to make radical improvements to space transport
technology
with particular regard to reliability safety rope and affordability
today it is arguably one of the leading aerospace companies
in the world with nearly 50 missions contract id
at at a value of approximately five billion dollars
we've washed up at 9 rocket eight times with her percent success rate
including poor launches but nasa 3 which docked with the International Space
Station
and and and have launched a sophisticated just a Sri satellite
for the world's leading satellite companies
on we r restoring America's competitiveness
in the global commercial space launch market as the only US company
that is consistently winning head-to-head competitions flaunt
opportunities that the world level
with respect to the GOP program I have five points to make
purses that the airports and other agencies are simply paying
too high a price per launch the impact to rely on monopoly provider since 2006
were predictable
and they're born out space for generations stagnated
compete competition has been stifled and prices have risen to levels that
general shelton has called unsustainable
when when the merger between Boeing lucky its business occurred
the the merger promised in the press release 150 million dollars in savings
instead they were billions of dollars cost overruns
and and a non mccurdy breach for the program exceeding fifty percent of its
cost projections
according to congressional records enough by thirty million postpaid
an average of $380 million dollars for each national security launch
while subsidizing you are the specs cost the tunable in a billion dollars a year
even if they never launch a rocket by contrast basics is
price is well into a hundred million dollars minute savings have
almost three hundred million dollars per launch which
in many cases were papal the launch and the satellite combined
so if you took something like a GPS satellite
which is about 140 million dollars you can actually have a free satellite
with the launch to I want plus the satellite would cost less than just
their launch
which is an enormous difference
every sickness subsidies to maintain a business
to put this into perspective hats basics been awarded the mission to early
received under its recent
non-computer 36 cockblocked by we would have saved the taxpayers
1.6 billion dollars
competition it a pointer to competition is coming to the Nationals creep
market this has been acknowledged up and weary commuters
we're ready to compete for that in order to be certified as an ERP providers
basics had to be the number requirements that were never demanded up the
incumbent provider
we were required to successfully launched three fights are operated
thought mine
vehicle which we achieved in in January
and write you know GOP certification agreement were undertaken
figures engineering refuse with the Air Force today we've delivered more than
30,000 paid items
air force and provided total access to internal systems to more than 300
government officials for certification
and we hope to complete that certification this year
I'm appointed with Rees really believe that robust competition must begin the
Spurs County year
report the early steps they're forced narrow have taken three inches
competition it's
GOP program in 2012 the air force
under direction the sector defense but idk computing up to fourteen missions
with five bill with five missions available for competition this year
because we're going to have preferred that the airport open all the
commissions for competition
and and we have serious concerns that the five missions that will be completed
this year
will not actually Pierre with that that that these vibrations will not actually
be awarded this year weep
recently learned that perhaps only one will be awarded this year
a point for with the app into competition
launch should really be viewed as a commodity in any competition cream new
entrants and your way
to public knowledge the launch such the received by the incumbent
consistent with federal procurement regulations and DOD acquisition
directives
wake up competitive environment exists the government should
use firm fixed-price far part will contract the province properly insert
contractors to live on time and on budget
that means limiting 2.0 subs it annual subsidy to 20
which creates an extremely on people playing field
and the final point is that about nine
talking to relaunch pickles are truly made in America we design and
manufacture rockets in California Texas
with his place throughout the country and launch them from Europe and book a
force basil Cape Canaveral Air Force Station
the stances talk Rockstar contrast to the
United Launch Alliance's most frequently for a vehicle that was five
which uses a Russian main engine where possible we have to promise me factual
overseas
in later pressures the back to annexation of Ukraine's Crimea region
and the almost every military ties the at least five cannot possibly to be
described as providing
assured access to space for a nation when supply the main engine
depends on president clinton's permission given this development woods
imprints reconsider
with up to 36 koran complete it's also sort your way
is truly the best interests the people United States
I think the committee for suction inlet port addressed many questions
thanks very much I'll our last witness doctor scott pace director space policy
institute Elliott School of International Affairs at George
Washington University
dark page
K Thank You German German and ranking member cochran members of the committee
for providing this important opportunity to discuss the topic of national
security
space launches as called for in US national policy
the united states and the beauty in particular I need to decide how best to
sure the existence
a quote to USB transportation vehicle families cable
reliably watching national security payload unquote
a space industrial base meeting all government needs
cannot presently be sustained by private market demand alone
that's a significant degree of government support will be necessary for
the foreseeable future
perv programs exist today is the result of technical economic and policy
decisions made over several decades
today fiscal constraints rising watch cost limited demanded strict government
requirements
have combined to create a complex ongoing debate about the role of
competition in the procurement
BRB class what services
the National Space policy states quote that US commercial space transportation
capabilities
that demonstrate the ability to launch payloads reliably
will be allowed to compete for US government missions on a level playing
field consistent with established the interagency
new entrant certification criteria i emphasize the phrase level playing field
as the determination just what this means is central to the question of
competition going forward
industry competition is a tool not an end in itself
depending on market conditions competition can result in meeting DOD
needs at lower cost
war feeling to meet those needs and merely shifting government cost other
accounts
be-all we program is managed by you away today represents a high degree of
experience and capability
as a potential competitor for national security watches SpaceX
brings in my view an intense focus on cost control
well meeting customer launch needs the policy issue
is not one SpaceX and other potential new entrants verses you alway
as much as it is one of deciding what to roll DOD should be
what do the government's policy priorities should we be trying to for
example
get the lowest price for reliable transportation to orbit
for a particular mission get the lowest price for
all national security missions get the lowest price for all government-funded
missions assure access to space for all needs
with the US industrial base at least cost
so the question it really is one of scope are that this committee wants to
take
the want services new entrant certification guide is a fawn fawn
prudent approach to assessing potential entrants
the more difficult question comes with what happens after a new entrant
is certified will incumbents and new entrants
with very different histories compete under the same rules
and whether they do or do not what may be said about the rules themselves
reliability in readiness have been the top priority for national security
launches
can the critical need for mission assurance be achieved at lower cost than
the way we do it today
this certainly seems desirable even possible
but careful thought needs to be given as to what responsibilities and
capabilities
ought to remain within the government will the government have the authority
to order
he stand down a vehicle family in the event to feel your
our agencies willing to relax or modify their used to cost accounting rules and
other
far based requirements for all lawn service providers
in short how much is a government willing to pay for process and how much
is it going to pay for performance
I would note here the GA owes report I thought was very germane
on this point in terms of pointing out some of the issues
defense acquisition reform is a much larger topic the present hearing
but it's none the less relevant deciding how to best acquire space for services
may provide opportunities for pilot testing
some forms a regulatory relief for example the government to pay separately
for non-commercial process he's and deliverables rather than having all cost
bundled into the launch cost
or company overhead the government may still pay more
for its watches in a commercial buyer would but cost drivers to be more
visible accountable and we
more usually allow cost-benefit raids for government decision-making
the most important consideration for any policy choices implementing approach is
that it be clearly stated
inadequately funded with clear priorities as to which
requirements schedules in goals will be relaxed
if resources or regulatory relief is not forthcoming
to do otherwise is to invite failure
thank you very much for your tension be happy to answer any questions
the you might have that pace thank you very much and I'm
I think you can tell from the opening statements that this
is subject that I found challenging
to the committee and to congress that really called for a much different
approach
in hearing to bring together to companies
from private sector to express their points of view
I'm done something it's a little unorthodox here
I've invited each the companies represented
UAL a through M mister gas and space extremist Mosque
to submit 10 questions to the other side
so that we can here what they consider to be the strengths and weaknesses of
their position
and their those will be submitted for the record and i'd
encourage each of them to respond
inappropriately and in a timely fashion let's get get down to some specifics if
you can
mister gas brush is in the news and the question about sanctions by the United
States against Russia
for their adventurism and chromium
a raise a question about our future relationship with this company
her with this country I ask you when it comes to your use
love the already 180 engine on your ad was five missions
what you think is the reliability that
engine being available from Russia for the immediate future
in with the United States in the interests of its own defense should take
that into consideration when words his contract
thank you senator been in there we all watching to
and caring for the people in ukraine's in this situation
first to the Meat Co give a little bit of history on the engine
go we went to the former soviet union woods
with the encouragement from two presidential administrations more than
two decades ago
to look at capabilities that were in Rush that were in in the former Soviet
Union
what we found was a engine that was more advanced in technology
and could be bought and gonna cost competitive way
that we had here in our country what we have done
into to protect in for that concern since the day we started with that
relationship
yeah more than two decades ago we protected the nation
and when we do from United Launch Alliance first and foremost we have
two years safety stock inventory actually today we have greater than that
in country and our ability to launch any the near-term satellites
that we need to do for national security and United Launch Alliance we have
another product
that is fully compliant and ready to support any the mission so from a nation
we are not at any risk for supporting
a our our national needs we've always kept
our ability to not to be leveraged in case a any kind of supply interruption
so I understand
for clarity here your saying that you have
warehoused stockpiled engines for two years
possible launches but about the capacity to produce that same engine in the
United States
up thank you senator mid we have but
whose as part of the deal that we go sign with that a company called odiaum
russ was the joint venture up united technologies and the company in russia
called NP owner marge
we had a few business deal week could buy
co produced an engine we bought all the blueprints and specifications
brought him into the country and demonstrate that we can take the
blueprints and specifications that were written in Russian
translating them and a full-on lent relationship
demonstrate we can build the most difficult products
and we've done that over certain several years we invested hundreds of millions
dollars
to prove that we have the capability to demonstrate our believe you
to build that exact engine I've always encourage the nation into
to kinda follow what we saw in russia the pay is a country
invested consistently in propulsion technology
we have how to fall behind in advanced technology
when we went to russia there were things that they were doing that
we found in our textbook said was impossible
so you know it just shows that you can break the bouncer technology
and we have the ability now that we know how to do it and
ready to do it the people did United much like industry the work is being
done at Marshall Space Flight Center
and at the Air Force Research Lab has been pushing our and global technology
we need to stay on that constancy purpose mister bascay
one cannot help but be impressed by the numbers that you givens
in terms of the cost love your product
measured against you away we start with the premise at senator shelby noted
you ellie has a flawless record it's been able to achieve
because we've set for them time and time and time again
your suggestion is we paid dearly for it and could pay a lot less now
I guess the question I need to ask the premises is goes back to the creation of
you away
do you believe it is possible to maintain two companies
in competition for future launches and could your company with
a record of success but more limited because I've
the time it's been around be able to compete
without for good for example commercial business
to sustain you when government budgets cannot
yeah absolutely percent I'm should mention that the
the the permissive a perfect success is not not quite correct
fool for you LA it is them that this we have a very good
a track record but the first built for heavy a failed
and those partial failure up the when the Atlas missions
which resulted in sidelight having reduced life so it certainly a good bit
but it's not
not quite correct its it's a it would be a flawed premise to say it is
it's perfect I'm you
what I think is a a lot logical sort of thing
thing going port is that they would be to families up rockets
but not three families rockets are currently you LA
has both the Atlas and the Delta but those those are redundant
we don't need both of those rock families
and I think it would make sense to to report for the long term
skittish the country's probably pays out the Apple iOS 5 which depends on the
russian engine
I'm and have for you away operate the
he tell the family SpaceX operate the that the Falcon family
giving the Defense Department assured access
space with to you completely different rock families i think thats
that's the logical thing to do going forward
and I think it would be I'm the best thing on on
would in every respect for the cap for poor country
this gas before I was chair the subcommittee
we look closely at the ELCA com the cost plus account
the basically as I been described in many different ways
to maintain the capability infrastructure necessary
so we are dealing when we deal with you alway which
with the actual fix price a product the launch
that we're purchasing and then and he'll see
which has been characterized as a infrastructure investment
a subsidy a cost-plus item
what I hear from mister musk is that he doesn't need that cost plus item
he doesn't need that subsidy in order to compete with you
so the question for the taxpayers why should we give your company
a special break when it comes to these launches
if you can't meet competition head on
well first yr again thank the question new
news coming in tomm as listening to mister marceca
an ironic moment came back to me in that respond within a decade and a half
that I was soon back to a room like this when
to some generals and and some industry leaders sitting here
explaining to senators like yourself about why
do some these values that cause billions dollars lost capability
and they were held accountable and most of them in their careers ended
and ok can we change the acquisition strategy eel see
was it was an outgrowth that event
what and I wanna put you in the shoes have the director of the National
Reconnaissance Office and the Air Force in 2004
the two companies competed we run a fart will fix price type contract is it was
to moscow
was is advocating all the national security satellites that congress funded
that were being
new news new stocks was significantly behind schedule
the capabilities in orbit was significantly the jury
the satellites would not sure when they were gonna come out of factories to go
to final test to having problems
and the nation needed the launch vehicle company
to stand red whenever that sound like came the nation needed that sell it to
be launched successfully
whenever it was right at a fixed price business
we were losing money there was no satellites to be launched we had people
standing around
we were furloughed I work force for a while and come back when there's enough
demand
when be when those sound like a ready pool up the demand
so we had a creep come up with a crew a solution that provided the national
security capability
so the EEOC is just that capability gives the flexibility
to the warfighter to make critical decisions when they need it
it's not us its categorically not subsidy I wish
I had a contract that mister moskos that has probably
nasa home commercial cargo
activity much better for making us competitive in
in and in the true commercial market because it doesn't come with any the
constraints and burns accounting
that I think miss chaplain articulate articulates the comes with a lot of
restrictions
so we'll see is not a subsidy it's about providing national security capability
with a focused laser focus on mission success
and I were also encouraged committee to think about it as a pendulum
we swung at one point in time to a very commercial model
we swung to a very a a
classical DOD contract and the pendulum is moving back
to middle we need to find that right equilibrium that brings that balance
though
critical missions and in promotes cost competitiveness
thank you perhaps more questions in the second round senator cochran
miss chairman thank you very much for convening this hearing it's obviously
very appropriate and timely
boom I wonder what the reaction in the panel years to the air force's new
strategy to reintroduce
competition in the year old the program
at the same time recognizing that we have
significant mission success which has been achieved by United Launch
lines the sole source launch providers since 2006
what is your reaction to that situation should we continue to support this as it
is or should we make changes
to Pinterest which which which which would like to answers
whoever wants injury
am I think when we did our report in 2011 the idea of having competition in
this program arose
I'm in overtime am PUD did recognize that this was way
to lower costs the cost for and Phyllis you
I am back in 2011 just two quotes
am Frank Kendall who is the acquisition leader and
do you deal with no threat to competition
the udel the and the prime contractor are important though she ate in position
and pay the price demanded to competition is one
avenue to put pressure to lower prices it's not the only avenue
the other avenues to gain insight into cost and pricing
and to take actions to gain more efficiencies within the program you have
their forces doing both am they've also
you know the nasa side abuses competition to do its launches
it works pretty effectively in a ulan space exhibit
Easter working under this arrangement it went well for another government agency
mister yes main event impression to share with us
absolutely the measures succession not be how widely competition
is employed but how wisely competition is employed
and when we started this program we had
me two competing companies the Lockheed Martin corporation a Boeing Company and
it wasn't working so can we formulate
competition that could work that's actually gonna save the taxpayer
money and when you deal with the limited to
demand up the nation and summer the unique requirements that nation's
how are we going to have that competition to be on a fair
and level playing field some of the most unique missions
clearly don't need multiple capabilities as country
and we talk about their level competition is is the two companies is
three companies is a four companies when does it stop how do you
limit other companies from one to participate and taking and each
the the product I shared the story of when I was here
you know about a decade and a half ago I was running
a program called the at was too it was supporting
the OD programs of our competitive basis we launching
basically the military satellite constellation we had a block by
a discus and UHF which have been replaced by the WGS
and mules in today's consolation we are a block by
fixed price commercial contract
with that contract we're able to compete for nasa
for a commercial missions
merely successfully after that those disasters I was promoted I'm
now had all many launch capabilities and I was cleared for
some cost but missions and recognized those missions can't work in a
competitive
commercial environment is does capabilities is so unique
that it just doesn't which will not work it would cost the government
ECA excess funds to to stand up multiple companies to have that redundant
capability
I always go back when I sure you with the acquisition of this is a story
you many years ago I worked on the Tomahawk cruise missile program
and the country want to do also awesome have competition
well the demand a wasn't there the
told the company's you can stay in business a quickly became a competition
to
win the losing share there was no incentive to win the majority share
because if you don't have a winner-take-all survival of the fittest
kind of competition and you you know that you can be kept around
it doesn't it also does work miss chapman talks about lessons learned
about us
I'm all for that pendulum movement to through the right spot
for our nation and delivers taxpayers the better
and more efficient active thank you
mister muskrat is your reaction to that
well do at I think as a country we
we've generally decided that competition the free market is a good thing
and that monopolies are not good I'm
and it is sick note that from the point to which I
Boeing Lockheed storage business merged from report which they stop being
competitors
the costs doubled since then I'm
and a I think they're the reality is when competition is introduced
use that Google ru reliability is a key factor in competition
so that there would be a deciding factor in who wins what launchers it
it doesn't become less important it becomes more important
I'm but the cost to to your specs taxpayer will prop
substantially I think they will drop at least to the level
that they were before buying lucky became probably in the large business
and perhaps even better than that
and and private if a rock it's a good enough for for nasa weather not good
enough for
who the Air Force it doesn't does make sense
not pace why I think their previous you comments have highlighted
the importance of looking at this is more than just DOD
that is what actions occur in the commercial market what actions occur
with nasa
all affect the same industrial base there isn't really a DOD space
Washington relations the US
watch industrial base and so what actions other agencies
pursue has an impact here as is mentioned nasa has been successful
in using more streamlined process ease for buying its watches
I think it's also fair to say that nasa doesn't have the same policy
our requirements for sure to access to space that DOD does
are I don't when I was at nasa with a lot of the science mission community
and %uh they were plainly opportunistic they would buy the best promote reliable
vehicle they could at
at least cost are but they did not have the same policy imperatives for sure
taxes space
for all their payloads that DOD does
so the question is what does the government one how much is it willing
are to give regulatory relief to move that pendulum
back and how much is it still want to have the kind of cost
and data in pricing insights are that it's traditionally
asked for and whatever it does I he needs to be done beyond just DOD but
needs to be looking at
other government purchases you know such as nasa practices
on that would be my response you thank you
senator feinstein thank you very much for holding this hearing
I'm not a newcomer to this issue I think it was several years ago that you LA
came and talked to me and
I all these companies are in California in one way or another
and so I've had a great interest in trying to follow this
mister chairman and I don't believe that the promised savings
eliminating competition have materialized
the cost to the government to the taxpayer really
has skyrocketed behind me is a chart from the GA owes written testimony for
this morning's hearing
it depicts the cost up the e L the program
since its inception the redline shows when you LA
I was formed so the cost to this program before and after competition for space
launch
depicted by the red line is starting startling
since 2006 when you LA was form
stage look space launch costs
have increased from $613 million
to 1.63 billion in F Y 14
that to 166 percent increase
for the program overall mister must mention danny's correct
that in 2012 this program triggered a non mccurdy breach
when average procurement unit cost
grew 58.4 percent against both the original
2004 and 2007 modify baseline
most startling the most recent independent cost estimate
from the cost at assessment and program evaluation
up dood projects the program will cost close
to seventy billion dollars through 2009
30 I welcomed
secretary candles acquisition decision
memorandum dated November 27th
2012 and I'd like to submit this for the record if i may mister chairman
the memo States and let me read it I direct the Air Force
to aggressively hairdos a competitive
procurement environment in the eBay
L the program by competing
up to 14 course with initial contract awards
as early as 2015
for missions it can be flown as early
as 2,000 17 on
and then it gave specific directions to the secretary
the air force which I think will be interesting
hard to read unfortunately it appears the air force is not living up to the
direction
provided by the undersecretary according to information provided to my office
it appears the air force is going to delay
and reduce the number of cores that will be competitively procured
before F Y 17 and I think that's really
shame I have three quick questions mister musk
Space Act has achieved as you just pointed out
three consecutive successful launches up its Falcon 9
rocket the major it that's the major requirement
for being certified for competition Fergie
LV contracts by the Air Force
so what challenges if any you expect
from the air for certification process
the they're forced circulation process appears to be going
quite well and we're not aware of any issues that would prevent us from being
certified
to fly missions it could completing at a location
this year we are concerned about any delays and in the contracting
and hopefully the a.m. up with us later materialize
and as I mentioned my earlier testimony i think im in light of the
recent eventually national stage the movie
wise to consider whether procuring the
the Atlas for as part of the 36 cockblocked by
I'm but which is a five-year by as mentioned earlier bus pass
they only have two years five engines yet this contract is
it this is a five-year contract for the thirty-six course
so died if there are any sanctions or if there's any
issue with spiders engines they will not be assured access to space for the Atlas
5
now according to the candle memo that I just mentioned
new entrant should be able to begin competing for up to 14
e LV launches by yeah
F Y 15 do you expect the Air Force to live up to the requirement
imposed upon it by undersecretary Kendall
I'm I'm very hopeful that the Air Force will
adhere to to that requirement
so you believe that you will be able to compete
414 EL the launches by F Y
15 I'm highly confident they will be able to say yes
good thank you very much mister thank you senator feinstein some shopping
the committee chairman list must you recognize
the Huskies me in your statement for the record that the Air Force
Air Force's acquisition approach requiring
detailed cost data accounting are eating in other mission assurance requirements
Ange these your words and substantial over it cause
to the taxpayer for oversight a bill
RB largely mature booster core
yet when you compare SpaceX in the URL a large prices
do you ignore the fact that the you l eight currently complies with them
mandates that you acknowledge and substantial overhead Carlos
is seems like your price estimates compare apples and oranges
in why should mister meraz why should SpaceX
be exempt from the same auditing oversight
in accounting rules that deal re DOD required to the United Launch
only use basics is required to comply with those specific requirements
how will that impact the coast have your launch vehicle
said University certainly I'm so
we provide up in full and detailed inside into all of our costs
done with been doing so for a long time to nasa
and we're awesome by adding that to the Air Force so the
that the government has complete insight into our cost structure
there is additional cost for US government missions
ago due to the mission assurance process because the US government is not by
launch insurance so in order to improve the probability of success there is
I'm quite a a substantial mission assurance
overhead that supplied which is why I hope that are
a launch costs are estimated to be 50 percent higher
for Air Force flights than for commercial flights says that have $60
million poor
a commercial mission it's ninety million but that compares to more like
$380 million for United Launch Alliance
so even when you add the Air Force overhead there are still
a huge difference in fact all the numbers I was referring to are
including the Air Force overhead should you have the same
rules to apply it to your company that the United loans has a plan to deal with
a guess is a quick absolutely
ok yep I'll miss champion again directed
yu-gi-oh you explain to the committee that a fixed price commercial contract
in accordance with FAR part 12
limits the dotz inside into contract calls
which is called problems in the past could you describe for the committee the
problems that have occurred in the past
in your view the utility in ensuring that DOD
continues to acquire detailed cost data
going forward whoever's doing it
okay am I would like to say when
there was commercial contracts use at the beginning the ER the program
the supplies did not have to follow those requirements
when the ER the program transferred into
using a cost type arrangement for one of its contracts
then they were required to have those systems
and the reason the systems are there is when you have a cost type contract
the government needs to validate those costs are not just pain
some price they just they are paying the costs incurred
t need standard Certified Systems insurer
those costs incurred are valid they include things overhead pensions
everything
that's allowable that the company incurs whites making their product for
producing that service
if going into this competition DD chooses the commercial approach
those requirements will not be required to be there party if they choose
the approach the reason now requirements will be imposed on both parties
the systems do provide the data they give you insight into cost
they give a uniform way of measuring they help impose discipline on a program
there's a lot of value and it was a long hard
fight to get those in the current program it was not easy it's
not an easy accomplishment to do after time period where you are required to do
that
that was also tied to the slot buys early on in the program so
its reason why there was a required in the very beginning
home so there's value to these requirements but under commercial
approach
the bottom line is price and those requirements would be required to be
either party missed much good
would you concede that sixty eight consecutive launches
is a great record I I would've although I'd like to point out that
there were two highly-publicized
failure investigations one for built for heavy 14
Atlas evident the Air Force conducted pillar investigations over
if they have a you only has a very good track record it is just not quite as
perfect as 68
perfect launch its yes you have any response
we measure the mission success by by our customers
declaration and so they declare that the satellite mission is
is success we use the same record the
and why it's important clues a profit is tied to mission success if we don't
deliver it personally
will lose for pure profit but said potentially get a penalty
so the declaration is about the on-orbit capability
and that's how you measure success missed a mask in October 2012
believe this is right a secondary payload aboard a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket
was sent into the wrong orbit because we're on the nine Merlin engines
powering the rocket failed
what recourse did the owner the secondary payload have in that situation
to recover damages in other words
what what's what's next
what was next right will
a.m. buy you a list official success that a mission was perfect
no that was perfect although you went into the
wrong orbit in so cool writing it
so that the primary mission which were
which was to deliver the Casio satellite was
one hopes that successful but there was a secondary sidelight
that was an optional objective that that third which was not part of primary
mission
but as that it if if you accept it
your list definition of perfect success than that mission was perfect the
successful
was yes it it would not be
to de klerk successful that was a contractor requirement we will
we would say it was successful the Baggies criteria which you say it was
not successfully
years you know we could have a debate about to success success but if
if it's considered an experiment and the rocket was supposed to propel more the
capabilities needed
it s you know that's a different kind a business arrangement but
in a measure success we could margins and the families that miss the most
refer to
we had on United Launch Alliance was designed margins the margins
came into play and we was able to successfully deliver the
decidedly it is a he
incredibly risky business and everything needs to work perfectly
got to pay she have any comino
I would add more from is a is a former
analyst we know with with nasa arm
that getting detailed understanding of their prices and cost
prices we understood I think with SpaceX understanding all the costs
I think was somewhat more difficult this basic should not have when I was at nasa
the detail level a business accounting systems
that we were used to on on other projects so we had a very robust
dialogue with the SpaceX people and we have got a lot of information there's a
lot of cooperation
but I would have to say that really understanding all those costs the same
level detail was was hard to come by
are and so eventually in some areas we said you know there's some
there's a magic going on in space X we don't fully understand
but we appreciate the results again how much is the government willing to pay
and impose on SpaceX on his contract
if it's not willing to impose those kinda detailed reporting requirements
are they willing to relax them
you know on other players thank you thank you mister
thank you senator shelby a.m. in this round I'm
gonna take what I'd consider after listening to the testimony
reading the background here the best arguments on
both sides and ask you each to address them
a preface by question to mister moskos follows
in this new job I'm traveling around the United States seeing some amazing
capacity that we have developed Newport News
the very best when it comes to building submarines
aircraft carriers helped Connecticut helicopters
worried go in this country California as well Boeing in the midwest
you see some exceptional companies doing exceptional work
keeping us as safe as possible and they all say to me
mister chairman if you keep cutting these budgets
will be laid off the best workers in the world and when you need us
if you ever need is we won't be there so you gotta find a way to maintain
our capacity to build even if
were not at war even if our budgets are going down
when I heard mister gas explained EL C
I think that's what I heard he suggested there was time
when the workers were idle they weren't being called to have as many launches
as they were in the past and so the EEOC some call the subsidy some called
something else
is basically there to maintain capacity even if the demand is not there
so let me ask you this what can risk we run as a country
to jeopardize the capacity you away
by eliminating the subsidy are not factoring into the bid
so that ultimately war no war
good budget bad budget when we need him will be there
sure will the reality is that today there's a steady cadence love
if force in or omissions every year so this you don't really have
the to the wide difference that for one year to the next that you have in the
past
so I think the just the prior justification needing that for stability
is no
no longer there because there is a stable launched a man from from the
at the Air Force intelligence community I'm
same way I go back to a point that there's really no need for you relate to
maintain two families rockets
a both the Delta and the Atlas
and given that the Atlas is dependable upon
Russian mansion which can pick up anytime logical thing to do
is to eliminate that the Atlas family have the Delta
and felt the family that will provide the greatest amount assured access
and grace reliability and the cost savings that the government is
is looking for the yes you saw the chart that senator feinstein produced
when it comes to competition it usually means lower-cost
when there's no competition a monopoly situation or anything close to it
buyer beware consumer then
consider the possibilities here that your costs are going to go up on bridled
so what we hear from mister musk is that if we went to price competition
we could save a lot of money in a hurry that in fact you away
based on his estimates is overcharging taxpayers
now here we're facing a budget situation which is
awful we're seeing limited increases
in defense spending and slightly over the horizon
another sequestration coming our way so why shouldn't we
as good stewards of taxpayers dollars say well let's put some competition at
that same
the American Way as the free market let's make sure that you are way is not
over churches
when we look at the mountains on senator Feinstein's chart
it's just without competition your costs have gone up dramatically
so why wouldn't the taxpayer be better served with competition
thank you for your question is important im and it may ask you put the truck back
up
first for the record I heard mister must use all kinds of numbers that work
categorically wrong in group and I'll be glad to share with the committee
the the right calculation G so the strut last night
in the GR report was released the most though again I know to
his as well and and that's an accurate representation appropriation
it's not an accurate representation of course to course performance
we just point your attention to the red line and Kurt I'm launching water
two-year
satellites relate you as you described we were being paid
for the capability to stand ready as we go out to the outer years we're now
buying rockets
and launching in about 10 or 11 years so if you just do
division or also be different the other thing that's
interesting to note that when we converted the contract in 2006
the stewards up for this country acquisition professionals
required Lockheed and Boeing and in into you away
that when we signed up the contract parts that redlined those losses
we actually had to give credits and about overbuilt was a billion dollars
that we took of the contract price so you can have to appropriate
during that time in the company took his losses because they were overly
aggressive in the Prix red line
activities with that expectation of commercial
so you talk about the good stewards and taxpayers than one
you know cuba a compliment to the incredibly hard-working acquisition
professionals that go through the data
and provide and make sure that the if the nation is getting a good value but
take take me down to the basic question here
price competition is going to give the taxpayers a lower-cost
is it not can if it's if it's on
a fair and open playing field and everybody has to have the same
requirements
the problem with that statement is if everybody has to have the same
requirements
and a certain requirements that all you don't need to be excess capacity because
it just doesn't work for two
any everybody has to have it it could create excess cost
the other example but I gave before we talk about the tom cruise missile
if you know you're not going to lose that's not a winner-take-all
you may not have the right kind incentives the same time that miss
feinstein shows the
X increase in the appropriation does appear to time we had a contract
that was not incentivizing cause performance we have what we call
award fee contract where requirements to creep up
and as a company well in would be if we said no and push back in the
requirements
you get negatively rewarded on
on you on the profit right today the Air Force fix that
we have a very clear contract it's aligned on on the priorities
that's one mission success is a major portion a profit
and we have been cost incentive contract only hope you'll see
we have the year-over-year improvement signed up to a greater than 5 percent
year-over-year improvement it's already in the contract and we're in San if ice
to improve upon that and a so it's the right kind contract for the tire friend
the period time where the satellites were not coming on a regular basis
as a different time frame there where we are today
I came into this into building and talk to your beauty
officials early as 2008 seeing that things were going to get more stable
that we need to change the acquisitions
strategy and it took us 2 2012 for us to do that
but it's on the right path sander
ok branch chairman thank you for confirming his hearing and
very helpful exercise I have no further questions but I won't compliment
the on Universite contractors are making to
produce products which protect the security interest serve our country and
reasonable price
to mister gas I'm trying to remember how many years to come we met but it was
quite a few and when we met
you know I was surprised that this was essentially a monopoly
and I think we talked about it and the EU assured me that these costs would go
down
now if I understand you correctly today what you're saying is
well there are
first air is the we have to follow one said restrictions and they follow
another said restrictions
an I don't quite understand this
would you oppose an open competition
if all the rules across the board with the same
would you LA actually say we all want to compete with SpaceX
thank you absolutely not to you elaine is ready and willing
and able to compete on any field will
I I would think that would be here answer and I think would think that that
Woods
be satisfactory because after all competition
is the american basic demand
I love for the cordons have a contract
so what keeps us from doing this
a basically SpaceX doesn't have all the capabilities in nor the requirement so
if
if you think about it SpaceX's requirements have to come down somehow
requirements have to
have to be eliminated to get that level playing ok okay
mister must respond to that if this is the heart of the matter
respond to it yeah i i please basics has
can can manage all the air force requirements
it we might argue that maybe some other requirements a.m.
should be there but we we will meet whatever requirements the Air Force
ask serve us and the
we believe we can we can manage all the air force's
satellites and and then some how much is this
is in the fixed price competition versus cost plus
well I'd I think I think express contrition is is that the better way to
go when
well when there's competition that the logical thing to do is to go for a fixed
price because otherwise
if you competed and its cost plus then it gives the
companies the option it's raised their that the prices affect we as the cost
per substance accomplished you have a quick problem with that mister gas
up I think it's important that the government understands what it's buying
I shared the story about the times we had failures and I was working on
fully fixed price contract and then when I was cleared for some missions that
I know that you're well aware of those kinds of missions
is very difficult to support auto on a fixed price basis the
operational needs the changes in schedules the the care and feeding that
some the South Lakes need
unique facilities was we talk about the Rockets but
were required to have special handling equipment nitrogen purge is the summer
the
to protect some the most sensitive sensors that are on so many satellites
very unique capabilities that only the national security needs are not
commercial commodities and right now the way we're doing the contracting today
Inc we use the term you'll see we're applying those costs to all missions
a goes back to the roots what how've lb program was established and was
come from a moment work gentlewoman report in nineteen nineties
and the goal was to lower costs for the nation across all about national orchard
what what what national on certain security needs not one missionary or not
so on average our costs have come down the program is greatly successful
and we're continuing to drive the cost and productivity
is is is improving but the key about
diffuse you questions about fixed price is can you really apply
to everything and it's about choices the nation needs to make
we can use it but what about the pendulum swinging we can go back to that
way we'll see some of the area's
was Japanese team has done a great job and report laying out the balances to
trace that the nation has to make
it's not about what companies want it's about what the country needs
and how the how government leaders make choices have had liver that
children understand what you're saying what you're saying is
if the requirements for bid we're all the same
across-the-board we would have no problem
is at correct or not it would be fine for the competition
but just yesterday a in the fourteenth Air Force on California had to make some
mission
switches between as to the Air Force they just
gave direction nasa mission was late an Air Force mission will do another nast
nest Air Force mission took priority another nasa
mission was moved out if one fixed price world that would be a serious have
contractual actions
potentially not having the capability to accommodate that because it took some
money
to create that flexibility in a fixed price world that operational flexibility
is not there for the warfighter
but it works for competition may mister musk responded in
would you respond to their certainly so it I think and
that the logical thing to do is to do a pics price competition
for the basic vehicle and then to the GRI that their mission unique
requirements
I'm that that there's a there's a that which is a fairly small part of that the
mission
that that would be cost plus so sir if
if firm if their forces will there's a unique national security satellite is
going to require these additional changes to the rocker to the mission
or skin require priority than than that just that incremental peace would would
be it would be logical to make that cost plus but the vast majority
contract would be fixed price thank you thank you very much
thank you much was chairman in Hutto met competition
real competition you can get it it's the best thing in the market we all know
that
doctor pace in a classic market multiple buyers
in cellars competition generally produces quality products
and lower prices the launch market his character lack
characterized by limited to me in few suppliers
multiple government industrial policies
therefore lowering the costume access to space while retaining performance and
reliability
may not result in price decrease for minors we don't know
if DOD has to pay for example
new entrants for the infrastructure in labor cause
now included in the EL the launch capability country
how would you put cation have existing infrastructure
result in lower launch calls for DOD
lobster concerned it recreate the wheel
could actually increase overall calls compared to what DOD is currently paid
do you have a common that certainly but that's certainly possible I think
what we could see happening is that the introduction of competition could lower
the cost my as a virtual lower prices for white category services or the
number admissions I think SpaceX for example could certainly compete for
there are numbered missions that it may take a while before SpaceX content
compete though as mentioned the Delta
job before class systems although eventually may compete for those as well
so the question is what do you want the industrial base to actually
look like if you break these costs out if you charge extra for non-commercial
process he's is a government will to pay for that or do they prefer the
convenience for bundling
all that up I can imagine a situation where
at was exits the market as described are
were Falcon takes over are from oh sure that we're still retaining the Delta
Force
and that is a much more are segmented market
but as result for the segmentation you'll simply have a new set of Monopoly
she'll have areas where
only the Delta is going to be meeting that until SpaceX to launch new products
you may have situations where only the Falcon is meeting other needs
so you'll be swapping the number of players around
you'll be breaking costs out in a more clean way but whether portal Costco down
for the government
i think is still something would remain to be seen an important is quality in
other words the
68 straight launches successful launch is important to do. de Priester
well I think it's absolutely absolutely crucial because what's happened so far
is that we've paid the week as government have paid for reliability
and readiness in I would also say that SpaceX is accumulating
watch experience at a very rapid rate every one of those
Falcons it goes off that's that's ten engines as i understand that are there
being qualified so
they're rated experiences building up quickly but
ulan has a longer-range experience with a wider range appealed so
it's really too two things that are quite different from each other
thank you thank you sir with chairman I do have a number by the
questions and like to submit to the REC certainly will hinder
if there no further questions and today's panel I want think
all of you for being with us doctor pace must must must be a sin
miss chapman thank you for your contribution today there will be written
questions coming your way and we hope the trip respond to in a timely fashion
so we can make this report
available to the public in this meeting so put your standard
period