NASA's $41M Aerospace Communications Facility contract awarded to Austin Building and Design Inc. for new construction
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $41,003,981 ($41.0M)
Contractor: Austin Building and Design Inc.
Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Start Date: 2019-11-25
End Date: 2023-05-12
Contract Duration: 1,264 days
Daily Burn Rate: $32.4K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Number of Offers Received: 3
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE
Sector: Construction
Official Description: AEROSPACE COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY (ACF) - NEW CONSTRUCTION
Place of Performance
Location: CLEVELAND, CUYAHOGA County, OHIO, 44135
State: Ohio Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $41.0 million to AUSTIN BUILDING AND DESIGN INC. for work described as: AEROSPACE COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY (ACF) - NEW CONSTRUCTION Key points: 1. The contract value of $41 million represents a significant investment in critical infrastructure for aerospace communications. 2. Competition dynamics for this project are assessed to understand potential impacts on pricing and contractor selection. 3. Risk indicators are evaluated based on project duration, contract type, and contractor performance history. 4. Performance context is established by examining the project's scope and its alignment with NASA's strategic goals. 5. Sector positioning highlights the contract's role within the broader commercial and institutional building construction market.
Value Assessment
Rating: good
The contract value of $41 million for the Aerospace Communications Facility appears reasonable given the scope of new construction. Benchmarking against similar large-scale institutional building projects would provide a more precise value-for-money assessment. The firm fixed-price contract type suggests that cost overruns are primarily the contractor's responsibility, which can be a positive indicator for cost control. However, without detailed cost breakdowns or comparisons to industry standards for similar facilities, a definitive assessment of pricing efficiency is challenging.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: full-and-open
The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit offers. With three bidders participating, the level of competition suggests a healthy market response for this type of construction project. This competitive environment likely contributed to price discovery and potentially led to a more favorable outcome for the government compared to a sole-source or limited competition scenario.
Taxpayer Impact: A full and open competition with multiple bidders generally benefits taxpayers by fostering a competitive environment that can drive down prices and encourage innovation, leading to better value for public funds.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiaries are NASA and its personnel, who will utilize the new Aerospace Communications Facility for critical operations. The project delivers essential new construction for advanced aerospace communication infrastructure. The geographic impact is localized to the facility's location in Ohio, supporting regional economic activity and employment. Workforce implications include job creation in the construction sector during the project's duration and ongoing operational roles.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Project duration of 1264 days (approximately 3.5 years) could introduce risks related to material cost fluctuations and labor availability.
- The complexity of constructing a specialized aerospace facility may present unforeseen technical challenges.
- Reliance on a single definitive contract for a project of this magnitude warrants close monitoring of performance and adherence to specifications.
Positive Signals
- Awarding under full and open competition suggests a robust selection process and potential for competitive pricing.
- The firm fixed-price contract structure shifts cost risk to the contractor, promoting budget certainty.
- The project's alignment with NASA's mission indicates strategic importance and likely strong program oversight.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, a broad industry encompassing the building of non-residential structures. NASA's investment in specialized facilities like the Aerospace Communications Facility contributes to the demand for advanced construction services. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other large-scale government or private sector construction projects for similar institutional or research facilities, considering factors like square footage, complexity, and technological integration.
Small Business Impact
The data indicates that small business participation was not a specific set-aside criterion for this contract (ss: false, sb: false). While the prime contractor, Austin Building and Design Inc., is not explicitly identified as a small business, the absence of set-aside provisions means that subcontracting opportunities for small businesses would depend on the prime contractor's procurement practices and the availability of qualified small business subcontractors for specialized construction trades. Further analysis would be needed to determine the extent of small business involvement.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), likely through contracting officers and project managers responsible for monitoring progress, quality, and compliance with contract terms. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm fixed-price contract, which places financial responsibility on the contractor for cost overruns. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases and reporting requirements, though detailed project-specific oversight activities may not be publicly disclosed.
Related Government Programs
- NASA Research and Development Facilities
- Aerospace Infrastructure Projects
- Government Building Construction Contracts
- National Defense Construction
Risk Flags
- Extended project duration may increase cost volatility.
- Potential for unforeseen site conditions in large construction projects.
- Technological advancements could impact facility's long-term relevance.
- Contractor performance history needs thorough vetting.
Tags
construction, nasa, aerospace, facility-construction, firm-fixed-price, full-and-open-competition, large-contract, ohio, institutional-building, new-construction
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $41.0 million to AUSTIN BUILDING AND DESIGN INC.. AEROSPACE COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY (ACF) - NEW CONSTRUCTION
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is AUSTIN BUILDING AND DESIGN INC..
Which agency awarded this contract?
Awarding agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (National Aeronautics and Space Administration).
What is the total obligated amount?
The obligated amount is $41.0 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2019-11-25. End: 2023-05-12.
What is the track record of Austin Building and Design Inc. on similar government construction projects?
A comprehensive review of Austin Building and Design Inc.'s past performance would involve examining their contract history with federal agencies, particularly NASA. This would include assessing their record on projects of similar scale and complexity, looking for any instances of delays, cost overruns, or quality issues. Analyzing past performance ratings, if available, and any debriefings from previous solicitations can provide insights into their reliability and capability. Understanding their experience with firm fixed-price contracts and their ability to manage large construction projects is crucial for evaluating their suitability for this significant undertaking.
How does the awarded amount compare to the estimated cost or independent government cost estimate for this facility?
Comparing the awarded amount of $41,001,398.14 to the government's independent cost estimate (ICE) or the contractor's initial proposal is essential for assessing value for money. If the awarded price is significantly lower than the ICE, it could indicate strong competition or a favorable market. Conversely, if it's higher, it might suggest an underestimation by the government or an aggressive bid by the contractor. Without access to the ICE or detailed proposal data, it's difficult to definitively state whether the price represents optimal value. However, the fact that it was awarded under full and open competition with three bidders suggests a degree of market validation.
What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) being used to monitor the progress and success of this construction project?
Key performance indicators for a construction project of this nature typically include adherence to schedule milestones, quality of workmanship, safety compliance, and budget management. NASA's contracting officers and project managers would establish specific KPIs outlined in the contract's performance work statement (PWS). These might involve regular site inspections, progress reports detailing work completed against planned timelines, material testing, and adherence to architectural and engineering specifications. The firm fixed-price nature of the contract also implies that meeting these KPIs within the agreed budget is paramount for the contractor's profitability.
What is the historical spending pattern for similar aerospace communication facilities by NASA or other agencies?
Analyzing historical spending on similar aerospace communication facilities by NASA and other agencies would provide valuable context for the $41 million awarded contract. This involves researching past projects of comparable scope, size, and technological requirements. Trends in construction costs, project durations, and the types of contract vehicles used (e.g., fixed-price, cost-plus) for such facilities can reveal market dynamics and potential cost efficiencies or escalations over time. Understanding these historical patterns helps in evaluating whether the current contract represents a reasonable investment relative to past expenditures and market conditions.
What are the potential risks associated with the 1264-day duration of this contract?
The 1264-day duration (approximately 3.5 years) for the Aerospace Communications Facility construction presents several potential risks. Foremost among these is the risk of escalating material and labor costs due to inflation over the extended period, which, under a firm fixed-price contract, would be borne by the contractor. There's also the risk of technological obsolescence if communication technologies evolve significantly during construction, potentially impacting the facility's long-term utility. Furthermore, extended project timelines can increase the likelihood of unforeseen site conditions, regulatory changes, or labor disputes that could lead to delays or disputes. Managing these risks requires robust project planning, contingency measures, and proactive communication between NASA and the contractor.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Construction › Nonresidential Building Construction › Commercial and Institutional Building Construction
Product/Service Code: CONSTRUCT OF STRUCTURES/FACILITIES › CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE
Solicitation ID: 80GRC019R0001
Offers Received: 3
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Parent Company: Kajima Corporation
Address: 6095 PARKLAND BLVD STE 100, CLEVELAND, OH, 44124
Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $41,849,007
Exercised Options: $41,709,431
Current Obligation: $41,003,981
Actual Outlays: $40,482,363
Contract Characteristics
Multi-Year Contract: Yes
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES
Cost or Pricing Data: NO
Timeline
Start Date: 2019-11-25
Current End Date: 2023-05-12
Potential End Date: 2023-05-12 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2023-07-17
Other National Aeronautics and Space Administration Contracts
- International Space Station — $22.4B (THE Boeing Company)
- TAS::80 0124::TAS Design, Development, Test&evaluation of Project Orion — $15.5B (Lockheed Martin Corp)
- Provide Developmental Hardware and Test Articles, and Manufacture and Assemble Ares I Upper Stages. the Upper Stage (US) Element IS an Integral Part of the Ares I Launch Vehicle and Provides the Second Stage of Flight. the US Element IS Responsible for the Roll Control During the First Stage Burn and Separation; and Will Provide the Guidance and Navigation, Command and Data Handling, and Other Avionics Functions for the Ares I During ALL Phases of the Ascent Flight. the US Element IS a NEW Design That Emphasizes Safety, Operability, and Minimum Life Cycle Cost. the Overall Design, Development, Test and Evaluation (ddt&e), Production, and Sustaining Engineering Efforts Include Activities Performed by Three Organizations; the Nasa Design Team (NDT), the Upper Stage Production Contractor (uspc) and the Instrument Unit Production Contractor (iupc). for Clarity, the Uspc Will BE Referred to AS the Contractor Throughout This Document. Nasa IS Responsible for the Integration of the Primary Elements of the Ares I Launch Vehicle Including: the First Stage, US Including Instrument Unit (IU), and US Engine; and Will Also Integrate the Ares I Launch Vehicle AT the Launch Site. Nasa IS Responsible for the Ddt&e, Including Technical and Programmatic Integration of the US Subsystems and Government-Furnished Property. Nasa Will Lead the Effort to Develop the Requirements and Specifications of the US Element, the Development Plan and Testing Requirements, and ALL Design Documentation, Initial Manufacturing and Assembly Process Planning, Logistics Planning, and Operations Support Planning. Development, Qualification, and Acceptance Testing Will BE Conducted by Nasa and the Contractor to Satisfy Requirements and for Risk Mitigation. Nasa IS Responsible for the Overall Upper Stage Verification and Validation Process and Will Require Support From the Contractor. the Contractor IS Responsible for the Manufacture and Assembly of the Upper Stage Test Flight and Operational Upper Stage Units Including the Installation of Upper Stage Instrument Unit, the Government-Furnished US Engine, Booster Separation Motors, and Other Government-Furnished Property. a Description of the Nasa Managed and Performed Efforts IS Contained in the US Work Packages and Will BE Made Available to the Contractor to Ensure Their Understanding of the Roles and Responsibilities of the NDT, Iupc, and Contractor During the Design, Development, and Operation of the US Element. the US Conceptual Design Described in the Uso-Clv-Se-25704 US Design Definition Document (DDD) IS the Baseline Design for This Contract. the Contractors Early Role Will BE to Provide Producibility Engineering Support to Nasa VIA the Established US Office Structure and to Provide Inputs Into the Final Design Configuration, Specifications, and Standards. Nasa Will Transition the Manufacturing and Assembly, Logistics Support Infrastructure, Configuration Management, and the Sustaining Engineering Functions to the Contractor AT the KEY Points During the Development and Implementation of the Program Currently Planned to Occur NO Later Than 90 Days After the Completion of the Following Major Milestones: Manufacturing and Assembly US Preliminary Design Review (PDR) Logistics Support Infrastructure US PDR Configuration Management US Critical Design Review CDR) Sustaining Engineering US Design Certification Review (DCR) After the Completion of an Orderly Transition of Roles and Responsibilities to the Contractor, Nasa Will Assume an Insight Role Into the Contractors Production, Sustaining Engineering, and Operations Support of the Ares I US Test Program and Flight Hardware. After DCR, the Contractor Will BE Responsible for Sustaining Engineering PER SOW Section 4.7, AS Necessary to Maintain and Support the US Configuration and for Production and Operations Support — $10.5B (THE Boeing Company)
- Space Program Operations Contract (spoc) — $8.5B (United Space Alliance, LLC)
- Joint Us/Russian Human Space Flight Activities — $4.7B (Russia Space Agency)
View all National Aeronautics and Space Administration contracts →