NASA awards $5.78M contract for engineering services to AECOM Technical Services, Inc. in Alabama
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $5,776,117 ($5.8M)
Contractor: AECOM Technical Services, Inc.
Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Start Date: 2024-07-08
End Date: 2026-04-30
Contract Duration: 661 days
Daily Burn Rate: $8.7K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Number of Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE
Sector: R&D
Official Description: MSFC ENGINEERING & SCIENCES LABORATORY BUILDING 4603
Place of Performance
Location: HUNTSVILLE, MADISON County, ALABAMA, 35812
State: Alabama Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $5.8 million to AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. for work described as: MSFC ENGINEERING & SCIENCES LABORATORY BUILDING 4603 Key points: 1. Contract awarded for engineering services supporting the Marshall Space Flight Center. 2. AECOM Technical Services, Inc. is the sole awardee for this delivery order. 3. The contract has a fixed price structure, indicating defined costs for services. 4. Performance period spans approximately 22 months, from July 2024 to April 2026. 5. The contract is for services related to the Engineering and Sciences Laboratory Building 4603. 6. This award falls under the Engineering Services category, NAICS code 541330.
Value Assessment
Rating: good
The contract value of $5.78 million for engineering services appears reasonable given the scope and duration. Benchmarking against similar NASA engineering support contracts would provide a more precise value-for-money assessment. The firm fixed-price structure suggests that cost overruns are primarily the contractor's responsibility, which is a positive indicator for the government.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: full-and-open
This contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all eligible sources were encouraged to bid. The specific number of bidders is not provided, but the full and open nature suggests a competitive process that should lead to fair market pricing.
Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by fostering a competitive environment that can drive down prices and encourage innovation from multiple vendors.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiary is NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, receiving essential engineering and scientific support. Services delivered will likely include design, analysis, testing, and integration for laboratory facilities. The geographic impact is concentrated in Huntsville, Alabama, where the Marshall Space Flight Center is located. This contract supports skilled engineering and technical jobs within the aerospace sector.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Lack of specific bidder count limits assessment of competitive intensity.
- Details on specific deliverables and performance metrics are not publicly available.
- Potential for scope creep if not managed tightly, despite fixed-price structure.
Positive Signals
- Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a robust bidding process.
- Firm fixed-price contract type helps control costs and manage financial risk.
- Contract duration is defined, providing a clear timeframe for service delivery.
- Contractor, AECOM Technical Services, Inc., likely has a track record with government contracts.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the Engineering Services sector, specifically supporting aerospace and defense-related research and development. The market for such specialized engineering services is competitive, with many firms capable of providing these technical solutions. NASA's spending in this area is crucial for maintaining its technological edge and operational capabilities.
Small Business Impact
The contract was awarded under full and open competition and does not indicate a small business set-aside. There is no explicit information on subcontracting plans for small businesses. Further review would be needed to determine if small business participation is mandated or encouraged through subcontracting.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight will likely be managed by NASA's contracting officers and program managers at the Marshall Space Flight Center. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases and reporting requirements. The Inspector General's office may conduct audits or investigations as deemed necessary.
Related Government Programs
- NASA Engineering Services Contracts
- Marshall Space Flight Center Support Services
- Aerospace Engineering and Technical Services
- Federal Engineering Consulting Contracts
Risk Flags
- Potential for cost overruns if scope is not clearly defined.
- Contractor performance risk.
- Dependence on specific technical expertise.
Tags
engineering-services, nasa, marshall-space-flight-center, alabama, full-and-open-competition, firm-fixed-price, delivery-order, r&d, technical-services, aerospace
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $5.8 million to AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC.. MSFC ENGINEERING & SCIENCES LABORATORY BUILDING 4603
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES, 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 $5.8 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2024-07-08. End: 2026-04-30.
What is AECOM Technical Services, Inc.'s past performance record with NASA and similar federal agencies?
AECOM Technical Services, Inc. has a significant history of performing contracts for NASA and other federal agencies, often in engineering, construction, and technical support roles. Their past performance is generally characterized by a broad range of services delivered across various large-scale projects. Specific details regarding performance ratings, past issues, or commendations on contracts similar to this MSFC engineering services award would require a deeper dive into federal procurement databases like the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). However, their established presence suggests a capacity to handle complex federal requirements. Assessing their track record on fixed-price contracts would be particularly relevant to understanding their ability to manage costs effectively within defined parameters.
How does the awarded price of $5.78 million compare to similar engineering services contracts awarded by NASA or other agencies for comparable work?
Benchmarking this $5.78 million contract requires identifying comparable contracts based on scope, duration, labor mix, and geographic location. Engineering services for large federal laboratories, especially within aerospace, can vary significantly in cost. Factors such as the complexity of the facility (Building 4603), the specific scientific disciplines supported, and the required security clearances all influence pricing. Without access to detailed cost breakdowns or a comprehensive database of similar fixed-price engineering contracts, a precise comparison is challenging. However, for a multi-year, specialized engineering support role at a major NASA center, this value appears within a plausible range, assuming the scope is well-defined and the contractor's proposed labor rates are competitive.
What are the primary risks associated with this contract, and what mitigation strategies are in place?
Primary risks for this contract include potential scope creep, contractor performance issues, and unforeseen technical challenges within the Engineering and Sciences Laboratory. Given it's a firm fixed-price contract, the contractor bears the primary financial risk of cost overruns. Mitigation strategies likely involve robust contract management by NASA, including clear definition of tasks, regular progress reviews, and performance monitoring. Technical risks would be managed through the contractor's internal quality control processes and NASA's technical oversight. Ensuring clear communication channels and a well-defined change order process are crucial for managing scope and preventing disputes.
How effective is the firm fixed-price contract type in ensuring value for money for this specific engineering services requirement?
The firm fixed-price (FFP) contract type is generally considered effective for ensuring value for money when the scope of work is well-defined and unlikely to change significantly. For engineering services like those required for MSFC's Building 4603, FFP places the cost risk on the contractor, incentivizing them to control costs and perform efficiently to maximize profit. This can lead to better pricing for the government compared to cost-reimbursement contracts. However, the effectiveness hinges on the accuracy of the initial cost estimate and the clarity of the SOW. If unforeseen complexities arise that necessitate significant changes, the FFP structure can sometimes lead to costly change orders or disputes if not managed carefully.
What is the historical spending trend for engineering services at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center over the past five years?
Analyzing historical spending trends for engineering services at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) requires accessing detailed procurement data. Generally, major NASA centers like MSFC have consistent needs for engineering, research, and technical support services to maintain their facilities and advance their missions. Spending in this category can fluctuate based on specific program requirements, facility upgrades, and budget allocations. A review of historical data would likely show significant, multi-million dollar annual expenditures on various engineering support contracts. Understanding these trends can help contextualize the current $5.78 million award, indicating whether it represents a typical investment or a deviation from historical patterns.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services › Engineering Services
Product/Service Code: ARCHITECT/ENGINEER SERVICES › ARCH-ENG SVCS - GENERAL
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY
Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Address: 300 S GRAND AVE SUITE 900, LOS ANGELES, CA, 90071
Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $5,776,117
Exercised Options: $5,776,117
Current Obligation: $5,776,117
Actual Outlays: $2,376,117
Subaward Activity
Number of Subawards: 3
Total Subaward Amount: $693,682
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES
Cost or Pricing Data: YES
Parent Contract
Parent Award PIID: 80KSC022DA117
IDV Type: IDC
Timeline
Start Date: 2024-07-08
Current End Date: 2026-04-30
Potential End Date: 2026-04-30 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2026-03-09
More Contracts from AECOM Technical Services, Inc.
- DB Repair Berths 40 and 41, Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, VA — $229.7M (Department of Defense)
- L-536 Interim/Final Levee Repairs — $121.5M (Department of Defense)
- Alternate Care Facility (ACF): Suny OLD Westbury - OLD Westbury, NY — $121.4M (Department of Defense)
- Fwda Parcel 3 Closure&corrective Action, Fort Wingate Depot Activity, Mckinley County, NEW Mexico — $107.1M (Department of Defense)
- Typhoon Mawar Recovery AT Various Locations in Joint Region Maria — $101.4M (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 →