NASA awards $22.77M engineering services contract to S&K Engineering and Research, LLC
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $22,770,776 ($22.8M)
Contractor: S&K Engineering and Research, LLC
Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Start Date: 2023-01-01
End Date: 2027-12-31
Contract Duration: 1,825 days
Daily Burn Rate: $12.5K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES
Number of Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE
Sector: Other
Official Description: ENGINEERING SERVICES
Place of Performance
Location: SAINT IGNATIUS, LAKE County, MONTANA, 59865
State: Montana Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $22.8 million to S&K ENGINEERING AND RESEARCH, LLC for work described as: ENGINEERING SERVICES Key points: 1. Contract value represents a significant investment in specialized engineering expertise. 2. Competition dynamics suggest a potentially competitive bidding process for this service. 3. Contract duration indicates a long-term need for sustained engineering support. 4. The cost-plus-fixed-fee structure allows for flexibility but requires careful cost management. 5. This award positions S&K Engineering and Research, LLC as a key provider for NASA's engineering needs. 6. The contract's focus on engineering services aligns with NASA's core mission objectives.
Value Assessment
Rating: good
The contract value of $22.77 million over five years for engineering services appears reasonable when benchmarked against similar large-scale NASA contracts. While specific per-unit cost data is not provided, the fixed-fee component suggests a degree of cost control. The contractor's selection implies they met NASA's technical and cost requirements, indicating a potentially good value for the specialized services rendered. Further analysis would require comparison with other engineering service contracts of similar scope and complexity.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: limited
The contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources,' which indicates that while the competition was intended to be broad, certain sources were excluded. This suggests a specific rationale for the exclusion, potentially related to specialized capabilities or prior performance. The number of bidders is not specified, but the 'limited' competition level might imply fewer than ideal participants, potentially impacting price discovery and the ultimate cost-effectiveness for taxpayers.
Taxpayer Impact: A limited competition may result in higher prices compared to full and open competition, as fewer companies are vying for the contract. This could mean taxpayers are paying a premium for the specialized engineering services.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiaries are NASA's various projects and missions requiring advanced engineering support. Services delivered include critical engineering analysis, design, and research essential for space exploration and aeronautics. The geographic impact is likely centered around NASA facilities and research centers, with potential for distributed work. Workforce implications include the creation or sustainment of high-skilled engineering jobs within S&K Engineering and Research, LLC and potentially its subcontractors.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Potential for cost overruns due to the Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) structure if not closely monitored.
- Limited competition could lead to less aggressive pricing than a fully open bid.
- Dependence on a single contractor for critical engineering services may pose a risk if performance falters.
Positive Signals
- Contract awarded to a specific company, S&K Engineering and Research, LLC, suggesting they met stringent requirements.
- The long contract duration (5 years) indicates a stable, long-term need and potential for consistent service delivery.
- The fixed fee component of the contract provides a ceiling on contractor profit, offering some cost predictability.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the Engineering Services sector, a critical component of the aerospace and defense industry. The market for specialized engineering services supporting government agencies like NASA is substantial, driven by complex technological requirements and long-term research and development initiatives. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other large engineering support contracts awarded by NASA and similar federal agencies, considering factors like scope, duration, and specific technical disciplines required.
Small Business Impact
The data indicates that small business participation is not a primary focus for this specific contract, as the 'small business set-aside' flag is false. There is no explicit mention of subcontracting requirements for small businesses. This suggests that the prime contractor, S&K Engineering and Research, LLC, is expected to perform the majority of the work, and the impact on the small business ecosystem may be minimal unless the prime contractor voluntarily engages small businesses as subcontractors.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract will likely be managed by NASA's contracting officers and program managers, who are responsible for ensuring compliance with contract terms, performance standards, and cost controls. Accountability measures are embedded within the Cost Plus Fixed Fee structure, requiring the contractor to justify costs and deliver on agreed-upon milestones. Transparency is typically facilitated through contract reporting requirements and potential reviews by NASA's Office of Inspector General, although specific IG jurisdiction would depend on the nature of any potential issues.
Related Government Programs
- NASA Research and Development Contracts
- Aerospace Engineering Services
- Federal Engineering Support Services
- Space Exploration Program Funding
Risk Flags
- Potential for cost overruns due to CPFF structure.
- Limited competition may reduce price competitiveness.
- Contractor performance history requires thorough vetting.
- Clarity of Statement of Work (SOW) is critical for cost control.
Tags
engineering-services, nasa, s-and-k-engineering-and-research-llc, cost-plus-fixed-fee, limited-competition, montana, delivery-order, aerospace, research-and-development, federal-contract
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $22.8 million to S&K ENGINEERING AND RESEARCH, LLC. ENGINEERING SERVICES
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is S&K ENGINEERING AND RESEARCH, 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 $22.8 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2023-01-01. End: 2027-12-31.
What is the track record of S&K Engineering and Research, LLC with NASA and other federal agencies?
A thorough review of S&K Engineering and Research, LLC's past performance is crucial. This would involve examining their contract history with NASA and other federal agencies, looking for evidence of successful project completion, adherence to schedules and budgets, and positive performance evaluations. Specific attention should be paid to contracts of similar scope and complexity. Any history of contract disputes, performance failures, or quality issues would be significant red flags. Conversely, a strong record of delivering high-quality engineering services on time and within budget would bolster confidence in their ability to execute this new contract successfully. Data on past contract values and types (e.g., CPFF, FFP) would also provide context for their experience.
How does the awarded value compare to similar engineering services contracts at NASA?
To benchmark the $22.77 million award, we would need to identify comparable engineering services contracts awarded by NASA over the past 3-5 years. Key comparison points include the contract's duration (5 years), the specific engineering disciplines required (e.g., aerospace, mechanical, electrical), and the scope of work (e.g., research, design, analysis). If similar contracts for comparable services were awarded at significantly lower or higher total values, it would indicate potential overpricing or exceptional value. Factors like the level of competition and the contract type (e.g., CPFF vs. Firm-Fixed-Price) also influence pricing and should be considered in the comparison. Without access to a detailed database of NASA's engineering contracts, a precise comparison is difficult, but the general market rate for such specialized services is a key consideration.
What are the primary risks associated with the Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type for this engagement?
The primary risk with a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract is the potential for cost overruns. While the 'fixed fee' provides a defined profit margin for the contractor, the 'cost plus' element means the government reimburses the contractor's allowable costs. If the contractor's costs exceed initial estimates, the total contract value can increase significantly, potentially exceeding the government's budget. This necessitates robust oversight from NASA to scrutinize all claimed costs, ensure they are reasonable, allocable, and allowable, and prevent scope creep. The contractor also faces risks if they cannot control costs, as their fee remains fixed regardless of cost fluctuations, potentially reducing their overall profit margin.
How effective is NASA's oversight in managing CPFF contracts to ensure value for money?
NASA generally employs a multi-layered oversight approach for its contracts, including CPFF agreements. This typically involves dedicated contract specialists, program managers, and technical representatives who monitor contractor performance, review cost submissions, and ensure compliance with contract terms. Regular reporting requirements, audits by the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) or NASA's own audit functions, and site visits are common mechanisms. The effectiveness hinges on the diligence and expertise of the oversight personnel, the clarity of the contract's requirements, and the contractor's willingness to cooperate. While CPFF contracts inherently carry higher cost risk, strong oversight can mitigate this by ensuring costs are justified and performance targets are met, thereby safeguarding taxpayer funds.
What is the historical spending trend for engineering services at NASA?
Historical spending on engineering services by NASA has generally been substantial, reflecting the agency's complex and technologically advanced mission requirements. Spending fluctuates based on major program cycles, such as the development of new spacecraft, launch vehicles, or scientific instruments. Over the past decade, NASA has consistently allocated billions of dollars annually towards research, development, and engineering support contracts. This specific $22.77 million award is a component of that larger spending picture. Analyzing trends would involve examining annual budget allocations for engineering services across different NASA centers and directorates, identifying periods of increased or decreased investment, and understanding the drivers behind these shifts, such as shifts in strategic priorities or budget constraints.
What are the implications of 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' on innovation and cost?
The 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' (FOCAES) designation implies that while the solicitation was initially intended for broad competition, specific sources were deliberately excluded. The rationale for exclusion typically relates to unique capabilities, proprietary technology, or specific security requirements that only a limited number of entities can meet. This can potentially stifle innovation by reducing the pool of ideas and approaches considered. From a cost perspective, limiting the number of bidders can reduce competitive pressure, potentially leading to higher prices than under a truly full and open competition. However, if the excluded sources possess highly specialized or critical capabilities, FOCAES might be necessary to ensure the government obtains the best possible solution, even at a potentially higher cost.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services › Engineering Services
Product/Service Code: IT AND TELECOM - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS › IT AND TELECOM - APLLICATIONS
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES
Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY
Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Address: 63066 OLD HWY 93 STE E, SAINT IGNATIUS, MT, 59865
Business Categories: 8(a) Program Participant, American Indian Owned Business, Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Government, Native American Tribal Government, Limited Liability Corporation, Minority Owned Business, Native American Owned Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Special Designations, Tribally Owned Firm, U.S.-Owned Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $29,723,471
Exercised Options: $27,942,496
Current Obligation: $22,770,776
Actual Outlays: $21,226,927
Subaward Activity
Number of Subawards: 2
Total Subaward Amount: $582,654
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED
Cost or Pricing Data: NO
Parent Contract
Parent Award PIID: 47QRAD20D8123
IDV Type: IDC
Timeline
Start Date: 2023-01-01
Current End Date: 2027-12-31
Potential End Date: 2027-12-31 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2026-04-13
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 →