NASA awards $8.7M engineering support contract to Agile Decision Sciences, LLC for 1-year duration
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $8,667,183 ($8.7M)
Contractor: Agile Decision Sciences, LLC
Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Start Date: 2025-04-01
End Date: 2026-03-31
Contract Duration: 364 days
Daily Burn Rate: $23.8K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES
Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE
Sector: Other
Official Description: ENGINEERING AND TECHNICAL ANALYSIS SUPPORT
Place of Performance
Location: HUNTSVILLE, MADISON County, ALABAMA, 35806
State: Alabama Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $8.7 million to AGILE DECISION SCIENCES, LLC for work described as: ENGINEERING AND TECHNICAL ANALYSIS SUPPORT Key points: 1. Contract value appears reasonable for specialized engineering and technical analysis support. 2. Full and open competition after exclusion of sources suggests a deliberate procurement strategy. 3. Potential for cost overruns exists given the Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type. 4. Performance period of one year allows for focused project execution. 5. Contract aligns with NASA's need for advanced engineering services. 6. Geographic concentration in Alabama may indicate specific facility or program requirements.
Value Assessment
Rating: good
The contract value of approximately $8.7 million for a one-year period of performance for engineering and technical analysis support appears to be within a reasonable range for specialized services. Benchmarking against similar contracts for engineering support within NASA or other federal agencies would provide a more precise value-for-money assessment. The CPFF structure necessitates close monitoring to ensure costs remain controlled and that the fixed fee adequately compensates the contractor for the defined scope.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: limited
The contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources.' This indicates that while the competition was intended to be broad, specific sources may have been excluded for reasons not immediately apparent from the provided data. The number of bidders is not specified, but the 'exclusion of sources' phrasing suggests a potentially narrower competitive pool than a standard full and open competition. This could impact price discovery and potentially lead to higher prices than if all potential offerors were included.
Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may not have benefited from the broadest possible competition, potentially leading to a less competitive price. Further clarification on the reasons for excluding sources is needed to fully assess the impact on taxpayer value.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiary is NASA, which will receive essential engineering and technical analysis support for its programs. Services delivered will likely involve complex problem-solving, design analysis, and technical evaluations. The geographic impact is concentrated in Alabama, suggesting support for specific NASA facilities or projects located there. Workforce implications include the potential for highly skilled engineers and technical specialists to be engaged through Agile Decision Sciences, LLC.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type can incentivize contractor to incur costs, requiring robust oversight.
- Limited competition due to exclusion of sources may result in less favorable pricing for the government.
- The specific nature of 'engineering and technical analysis' can be broad, requiring clear scope definition to prevent scope creep.
Positive Signals
- Agile Decision Sciences, LLC is the awardee, suggesting they met the technical and performance requirements.
- The contract has a defined period of performance (one year), allowing for focused project management.
- The award is for a specific need within NASA, indicating alignment with agency objectives.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the Engineering Services sector (NAICS 541330), a critical component of the aerospace and defense industry. This sector is characterized by high technical expertise, innovation, and often involves complex, long-term projects. NASA's significant investment in R&D and program execution relies heavily on specialized engineering support. Comparable spending benchmarks for similar engineering analysis contracts within NASA or the broader federal government would typically range from several million to tens of millions of dollars annually, depending on the scope and duration.
Small Business Impact
The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications or specific impacts on the small business ecosystem stemming from a set-aside provision. However, the prime contractor, Agile Decision Sciences, LLC, may engage small businesses as subcontractors if it aligns with their subcontracting plan or project needs, though this is not mandated by the contract type.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract will primarily reside with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). As a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract, rigorous financial oversight is crucial to monitor incurred costs against the fixed fee. Accountability measures will likely involve performance reviews, milestone tracking, and adherence to the contract's Statement of Work. Transparency will depend on NASA's reporting practices and the public availability of contract details. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse is suspected.
Related Government Programs
- NASA Research and Development Contracts
- Aerospace Engineering Services
- Technical Support Services Contracts
- Federal Engineering Consulting
Risk Flags
- CPFF Contract Type Risk
- Limited Competition Concerns
- Potential for Cost Overruns
- Justification for Source Exclusion Unclear
Tags
engineering-services, nasa, alabama, cost-plus-fixed-fee, delivery-order, limited-competition, technical-analysis, aerospace, federal-contract, professional-services
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $8.7 million to AGILE DECISION SCIENCES, LLC. ENGINEERING AND TECHNICAL ANALYSIS SUPPORT
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is AGILE DECISION SCIENCES, LLC.
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 $8.7 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2025-04-01. End: 2026-03-31.
What is the track record of Agile Decision Sciences, LLC with NASA and other federal agencies?
A detailed analysis of Agile Decision Sciences, LLC's track record would involve examining their past performance on federal contracts, particularly with NASA. This includes reviewing contract histories for on-time delivery, adherence to budget, quality of work, and any past performance evaluations or disputes. Understanding their experience with similar engineering and technical analysis support services is crucial. For instance, have they successfully managed CPFF contracts of comparable value and complexity? Have they received awards or commendations, or have they faced performance issues? Accessing federal procurement databases like FPDS or SAM.gov would provide specific contract award data, including past performance information and any reported issues, which are vital for assessing their reliability and capability for this new contract.
How does the awarded amount compare to similar engineering support contracts at NASA?
To benchmark the $8.7 million award, we would compare it against similar engineering and technical analysis support contracts awarded by NASA over the past 2-3 fiscal years. Key comparison points include contract duration, scope of work (e.g., specific engineering disciplines, level of analysis required), contract type (e.g., CPFF, FFP), and the number of bidders. For example, if NASA recently awarded a 2-year contract for similar services to another firm for $15 million, this $8.7 million for a 1-year contract might appear competitive. Conversely, if similar 1-year contracts were awarded for $5 million, this award might warrant further scrutiny regarding its value for money. Analyzing the average cost per labor hour or per deliverable across comparable contracts would provide a more granular understanding of pricing competitiveness.
What are the primary risks associated with a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract for engineering services?
The primary risk with a CPFF contract is the potential for cost overruns, as the contractor is reimbursed for all allowable costs plus a fixed fee. While the fixed fee incentivizes efficiency to some extent, it does not directly cap the total contract cost. This structure can lead to less incentive for the contractor to control costs compared to a Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) contract. For the government, risks include paying higher-than-necessary costs if the contractor is not diligent in managing expenses. Effective risk mitigation requires robust government oversight, detailed cost monitoring, clear definition of allowable costs, and strong negotiation of the fixed fee based on realistic cost estimates and profit margins. Regular audits and performance reviews are essential to ensure costs are reasonable and allocable.
What is the significance of 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' for this contract?
The 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' designation suggests a procurement process that aimed for broad competition but ultimately excluded certain potential offerors. The reasons for exclusion could range from specific technical requirements that only a limited number of firms could meet, to prior relationships or specific circumstances that led to the exclusion of others. This approach can be legitimate if well-documented and justified, but it inherently narrows the competitive pool compared to a standard 'Full and Open Competition.' The implication for taxpayers is that the government may not have received bids from all potentially capable and competitive sources, which could lead to a less competitive price. Understanding the justification for the exclusion is key to assessing whether this procurement strategy maximized value for the government.
How does the geographic concentration in Alabama impact the contract's execution and oversight?
The concentration of this contract's performance in Alabama suggests that the engineering and technical analysis support is likely tied to specific NASA facilities or projects located within the state, such as Marshall Space Flight Center. This geographic focus can streamline communication and collaboration between the contractor and government personnel co-located at these sites. However, it also means that oversight efforts must be effectively managed from these locations. If government oversight personnel are not physically present, remote monitoring and communication protocols become critical. It also implies that the economic impact of this contract, in terms of job creation and local spending, will be primarily concentrated within Alabama, potentially limiting broader national economic benefits from this specific award.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services › Engineering Services
Product/Service Code: SUPPORT SVCS (PROF, ADMIN, MGMT) › PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES
Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE
Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Parent Company: Arctic Slope Regional Corporation
Address: 350 VOYAGER WAY STE 100B, HUNTSVILLE, AL, 35806
Business Categories: 8(a) Program Participant, Alaskan Native Corporation Owned Firm, Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Minority Owned Business, Native American Owned Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $8,667,183
Exercised Options: $8,667,183
Current Obligation: $8,667,183
Actual Outlays: $5,805,871
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED
Cost or Pricing Data: NO
Parent Contract
Parent Award PIID: 80HQTR21D0003
IDV Type: IDC
Timeline
Start Date: 2025-04-01
Current End Date: 2026-03-31
Potential End Date: 2026-03-31 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2026-02-13
More Contracts from Agile Decision Sciences, LLC
- CS Support Services of Major Programs — $143.2M (Department of Defense)
- Science Mission Directorate (SMD) Solicitation Peer Review Program Portfolio Support — $102.7M (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
- Cybersecurity Support Services — $54.5M (Department of Defense)
- Nress-Ii Management and IT Support — $50.1M (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
- 402 Software Engineering Group (sweg) Software Support Services — $46.7M (Department of Defense)
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 →