Two Clients Commissioned The Same Retrieval. Neither Knew About The Other.
ORC DISPATCH · MISSION REPORT · ORC-2024-271 · CLEARED FOR PUBLICATION · CLIENT A: AWARE · CLIENT B: AWARE · BOTH AWARE OF EACH OTHER: NOW
MISSION REF / ORC-2024-271 · FILED 11 NOV 2024 · PUBLISHED 23 MAY 2026
Two Clients Commissioned The Same Retrieval. Neither Knew About The Other. ORC Found Out On Day Four. This Report Has Two Views.
LEO Standard Retrieval · S-01 · ORC-V2 “Reg” · Sep–Oct 2024 · Commissioning clients: 2 · Object: 1
APPROVED: M. HARGREAVES · LEGAL: L. SANDHU (SIGNIFICANT INVOLVEMENT) · NOTE: THE TWO CLIENTS HAVE BOTH REVIEWED THIS REPORT. CLIENT A DESCRIBED IT AS “MORTIFYING.” CLIENT B DESCRIBED IT AS “FAIR.” WE HAVE PUBLISHED IT. THE BILLING ARRANGEMENT IS DESCRIBED IN SECTION 03. L. SANDHU WROTE THE BILLING SECTION. L. SANDHU WROTE IT FOUR TIMES.
HOW THIS HAPPENED
The object — a decommissioned GEO telecommunications satellite — had joint historical ownership between two companies following a corporate acquisition in 2021. Under the acquisition terms, joint end-of-life responsibilities applied. Both companies had independently engaged ORC to handle the retrieval. Neither company had informed ORC of the joint ownership. Neither company had apparently informed each other that they were commissioning ORC. This became clear on day 4, when both clients called to ask for an update on “their” mission. A. Kowalski took both calls within eleven minutes of each other. A. Kowalski noticed.
Toggle between the two client streams below to see the situation from each side. The collision point is marked in red.
COMMUNICATION STREAMS · SELECT CLIENT VIEW
DAY 1 · 14 SEPTEMBER 2024
CLIENT A submits Form 3-Q for the object. States object ownership as sole proprietor. Commissioning authority confirmed. Quote accepted. Contract signed.
ORC note: Standard commission. No red flags. The object is in the NORAD catalogue under a name that postdates the acquisition. ORC has not researched the ownership history. This is not something ORC normally does for a standard S-01.
DAY 3 · 16 SEPTEMBER
CLIENT A calls for a pre-mission confirmation check. A. Kowalski confirms Reg has been deployed. Client A says “great, keep us posted.”
ORC note: Normal call. Nothing unusual.
DAY 4 · 17 SEPTEMBER · 11:23 ← COLLISION POINT
CLIENT A calls for an update. A. Kowalski takes the call. A. Kowalski confirms the mission is proceeding normally. Client A says “excellent, and are you aware that there’s apparently another operator also pursuing this object?” A. Kowalski says he was not aware of that. Client A says they heard it from [REDACTED]
ORC note: A. Kowalski is now holding two clients simultaneously. This is not a position ORC has been in before. A. Kowalski has M. Hargreaves on the internal line. M. Hargreaves says “hold them both.” A. Kowalski is holding them both.
DAY 4 · 17 SEPTEMBER · 13:44
Client A is informed by M. Hargreaves that ORC has also received a commission from Client B for the same object, and that ORC has been conducting the mission in good faith under both commissions simultaneously without being aware of the overlap. Client A says “this is mortifying.” M. Hargreaves agrees that the situation is awkward. M. Hargreaves proposes a three-way call. Client A agrees.
ORC note: Client A’s use of “mortifying” is accurate. ORC is not mortified because ORC did nothing wrong. ORC is, however, sympathetic.
DAY 5 · THREE-WAY CALL
Clients A and B speak with each other for the first time regarding this specific matter. The call lasts 47 minutes. ORC is on the call for 12 of those minutes. For the remaining 35 minutes ORC is on mute. ORC’s presence is described as “useful” by Client A and “necessary” by Client B. ORC considers both descriptions appropriate.
ORC note: L. Sandhu drafted the billing amendment during the 35 minutes ORC was on mute. L. Sandhu works efficiently under pressure.
MISSION COMPLETE · OCTOBER 2024
Mission completed successfully. Client A pays 50% of the total fee. Client A describes the outcome as “resolved, though not how we’d have wanted.” ORC notes this feedback.
DAY 1 · 14 SEPTEMBER 2024 · 16:44
CLIENT B submits Form 3-Q for the same object, 5 hours after Client A. States object ownership as co-proprietor under acquisition agreement. Commissioning authority confirmed. Quote accepted. Contract signed.
ORC note: ORC’s intake team processed this as a new commission. The object reference matched an existing open mission. The intake team did not cross-reference open missions. This is now a step in the intake process. The step exists because of this day.
DAY 2 · 15 SEPTEMBER
Client B receives ORC’s standard commission confirmation. Client B calls to confirm receipt. A. Kowalski confirms. Client B says “marvellous, we’re keen to get this sorted.”
ORC note: A. Kowalski has now spoken to both clients. A. Kowalski has not connected the two commissions. The object references are the same but appear in different files. This is a process gap. The gap has been closed.
DAY 4 · 17 SEPTEMBER · 11:34 ← COLLISION POINT
CLIENT B calls for an update on “their” mission. A. Kowalski takes the call. A. Kowalski is [REDACTED]
ORC note: This is the moment. Both clients are on hold. M. Hargreaves is standing next to A. Kowalski. They look at each other. M. Hargreaves says “right.” This is the complete account of what was said.
DAY 4 · 17 SEPTEMBER · 14:22
Client B is informed of the situation. Client B says “I see” and is then quiet for a moment and then says “well this is awkward.” M. Hargreaves agrees this is awkward. M. Hargreaves proposes the three-way call. Client B agrees and adds, “though I’d like legal on the call.” ORC says of course. L. Sandhu joins the call.
ORC note: Client B’s legal team was, it emerged during the call, already aware of Client A’s retrieval commission. Client B’s legal team had apparently forgotten to tell Client B. Client B was informed of this during the call, in real time, in front of ORC. ORC was on mute. ORC was not on mute through choice.
MISSION COMPLETE · OCTOBER 2024
Mission completed successfully. Client B pays 50% of the total fee. Client B describes the outcome as “fair, and a lesson learned.” ORC notes this feedback and agrees it is both fair and a lesson learned.
This view shows what ORC knew, and when. Select Client A or Client B to see the situation from each client’s perspective.
DAY 1 · 09:12
Client A commission received. Processed normally. Mission ORC-2024-271 opened. Reg assigned.
DAY 1 · 16:44
Client B commission received for the same object. Processed as a new mission. Mission ORC-2024-271-B opened. ORC has two open commissions for the same object and does not yet know this.
Process gap: The intake form did not require cross-referencing against open missions. It does now. The field was added on 18 September 2024. It reads: “Object reference — please confirm no active ORC mission is already in progress for this object.”
DAY 2 · 08:30
Reg deployed. A. Kowalski briefs both clients (separately, on different calls, using identical language, without realising they are both calling about the same object and the same mission).
DAY 4 · 11:23–11:34 · ORC BECOMES AWARE
A. Kowalski speaks to Client A (11:23). Client A mentions the other operator. A. Kowalski places Client A on hold. A. Kowalski speaks to Client B (11:34). A. Kowalski places Client B on hold. A. Kowalski looks at both open files. A. Kowalski sees the same object reference in both. A. Kowalski messages M. Hargreaves. M. Hargreaves comes to A. Kowalski’s desk. Both clients are on hold for 7 minutes while M. Hargreaves reads both files.
DAY 4–5 · RESOLUTION
M. Hargreaves speaks to both clients. Three-way call arranged. L. Sandhu drafts a billing amendment: both clients pay 50% of the total mission cost. Amendment accepted by both clients. Missions ORC-2024-271 and ORC-2024-271-B are merged into a single record. The mission continues and is completed successfully.
M. Hargreaves note (post-mission): “The situation was caused by a gap in our intake process and a gap in both clients’ internal communication. We have closed our gap. We cannot close theirs. We can note, however, that splitting the cost 50/50 is the correct outcome and both clients agreed without significant discussion. This suggests both clients knew, somewhere in their organisations, that the other was involved. We are not pursuing this line of thinking. The mission is complete.”
L. Sandhu drafted the billing amendment on day 4, during the 35 minutes ORC spent on mute during the three-way call. The amendment was two pages long. Its core provision was that both clients would pay 50% of the total mission fee, with a mutual waiver of any claim arising from the parallel commission situation. L. Sandhu described drafting it as [REDACTED]
Both clients signed the amendment on day 6. Client A’s legal team requested one change. Client B’s legal team requested no changes. L. Sandhu accepted the change. The change was a formatting preference. L. Sandhu has not commented on this.
INTAKE UPDATE
ORC’s commission intake process now includes a mandatory object cross-reference check against all active and pending missions. This check was not in place before ORC-2024-271. It is in place now. If a duplicate object reference is detected, the intake is flagged for review before any commission is confirmed. This check would have prevented this situation. It did not prevent it because it did not exist. It exists now.
END OF REPORT · ORC-2024-271 · CLIENTS: 2 · OBJECTS: 1 · A. KOWALSKI: BOTH ON HOLD SIMULTANEOUSLY · L. SANDHU: 35 MINUTES · INTAKE CHECK: NOW EXISTS