NASA awards $23M+ for facilities support, highlighting core operational needs
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $23,006,814 ($23.0M)
Contractor: Nova Space Solutions, LLC
Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Start Date: 2025-07-01
End Date: 2026-09-30
Contract Duration: 456 days
Daily Burn Rate: $50.5K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Pricing Type: COST PLUS INCENTIVE FEE
Sector: Other
Official Description: COMBINED OPERATIONS, SERVICES, MAINTENANCE, AND INFRASTRUCTURE CONTRACT (COSMIC) BASE YEAR - CORE COST-PLUS INCENTIVE FEE (CPIF) FUNDING ORDER
Place of Performance
Location: STENNIS SPACE CENTER, HANCOCK County, MISSISSIPPI, 39529
Plain-Language Summary
National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $23.0 million to NOVA SPACE SOLUTIONS, LLC for work described as: COMBINED OPERATIONS, SERVICES, MAINTENANCE, AND INFRASTRUCTURE CONTRACT (COSMIC) BASE YEAR - CORE COST-PLUS INCENTIVE FEE (CPIF) FUNDING ORDER Key points: 1. Contract focuses on essential facilities support, indicating a need for stable operational infrastructure. 2. The CPIF contract type incentivizes cost control while allowing for performance-based adjustments. 3. Full and open competition suggests a robust market for these services. 4. The contract duration of 456 days points to a medium-term need for these services. 5. Geographic focus on Mississippi for core services. 6. This award represents a significant investment in maintaining critical NASA infrastructure.
Value Assessment
Rating: good
The contract value of over $23 million for a 456-day period appears reasonable for comprehensive facilities support services. Benchmarking against similar large-scale facilities management contracts for federal agencies suggests this pricing is within expected ranges. The Cost-Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) structure allows for potential savings if the contractor performs efficiently, which is a positive indicator for value.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: full-and-open
The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that multiple capable vendors had the opportunity to bid. This approach typically fosters competitive pricing and encourages innovation. The specific number of bidders is not provided, but the method of competition suggests a healthy market for these specialized facilities support services.
Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is generally beneficial for taxpayers as it drives down costs through market forces and ensures the government receives competitive offers.
Public Impact
Benefits NASA's operational continuity by ensuring facilities are maintained and functional. Delivers essential services including maintenance, operations, and infrastructure support. Geographic impact is concentrated in Mississippi, supporting local infrastructure and potentially local employment. Workforce implications may include the need for skilled trades and facility management professionals.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Potential for cost overruns if incentive targets are not met effectively.
- Reliance on a single contractor for critical infrastructure support could pose a risk if performance falters.
Positive Signals
- CPIF structure incentivizes contractor efficiency and cost management.
- Full and open competition suggests a competitive market and potentially better pricing.
- Focus on core operational support indicates alignment with NASA's mission needs.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the Facilities Support Services sector, a critical component of government operations. The market for these services is substantial, encompassing a wide range of activities from routine maintenance to complex infrastructure management. NASA's spending in this area is consistent with the needs of large, complex research and operational facilities, requiring specialized expertise to ensure safety, efficiency, and mission readiness.
Small Business Impact
The contract was not set aside for small businesses, and there is no indication of specific subcontracting requirements for small businesses in the provided data. This suggests that the primary award went to a larger entity, and the direct impact on the small business ecosystem may be limited unless the prime contractor actively engages small businesses for subcontracting opportunities.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract will likely be managed by NASA's contracting officers and program managers. Accountability measures are embedded within the Cost-Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) structure, which ties contractor profit to performance and cost targets. Transparency is facilitated through the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS), where contract awards are publicly reported.
Related Government Programs
- NASA Facilities Maintenance Contracts
- Federal Facilities Support Services
- Cost-Plus Incentive Fee Contracts
- Space Agency Infrastructure Support
Risk Flags
- Potential for cost growth in CPIF contracts
- Contractor performance risk
- Reliance on single vendor for critical services
Tags
facilities-support, nasa, mississippi, delivery-order, cost-plus-incentive-fee, full-and-open-competition, operational-support, infrastructure-maintenance, large-contract
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $23.0 million to NOVA SPACE SOLUTIONS, LLC. COMBINED OPERATIONS, SERVICES, MAINTENANCE, AND INFRASTRUCTURE CONTRACT (COSMIC) BASE YEAR - CORE COST-PLUS INCENTIVE FEE (CPIF) FUNDING ORDER
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is NOVA SPACE SOLUTIONS, 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 $23.0 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2025-07-01. End: 2026-09-30.
What is the historical spending pattern for facilities support services at NASA?
Historical spending on facilities support services by NASA can vary significantly year-to-year, influenced by major construction projects, upgrades, and the operational tempo of its various centers. Generally, NASA allocates substantial funds to maintain its unique research, testing, and launch facilities. Analyzing past FPDS data reveals consistent, multi-million dollar investments in contracts for operations, maintenance, and infrastructure management across different centers. These patterns often show a mix of long-term service contracts and project-specific awards, reflecting the ongoing need to preserve and modernize aging infrastructure while supporting cutting-edge research and space exploration missions. Fluctuations can also be tied to budget appropriations and strategic shifts in agency priorities.
How does the CPIF contract type typically perform in terms of cost control compared to other contract types?
Cost-Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) contracts are designed to incentivize both cost savings and performance improvements. In CPIF agreements, the final cost is determined by the negotiated target cost, the actual cost incurred, and a sharing arrangement for any deviations from the target. The contractor's profit is adjusted based on how well they meet or exceed cost and performance objectives. Compared to Cost-Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contracts, CPIF offers a stronger incentive for the contractor to manage costs diligently, as they share in any savings. However, they can be more complex to administer than fixed-price contracts. Historically, CPIF contracts can lead to better cost control than CPFF when performance metrics are well-defined and achievable, but they still carry inherent risks of cost growth if targets are unrealistic or performance is difficult to measure accurately.
What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) likely used in this contract?
For a facilities support contract like this, key performance indicators (KPIs) would likely focus on operational efficiency, service reliability, safety, and cost management. Examples include response times for maintenance requests, uptime of critical building systems (e.g., HVAC, power), adherence to preventative maintenance schedules, safety incident rates (e.g., lost-time injuries), energy consumption efficiency, and successful completion of facility inspections. The CPIF structure implies that meeting or exceeding targets for these KPIs would result in higher contractor profit, while failing to meet them could reduce profit or incur penalties, depending on the specific incentive clauses.
What is the typical market size for federal facilities support services?
The federal government is one of the largest consumers of facilities support services, with annual spending often reaching tens of billions of dollars across all agencies. This market encompasses a vast array of services, including building operations and maintenance, custodial services, groundskeeping, repair and renovation, energy management, and security systems. Major agencies like the Department of Defense, General Services Administration (GSA), and NASA consistently award large contracts in this domain. The market is characterized by a mix of large, established service providers and smaller, specialized firms, with significant opportunities for both prime contracts and subcontracts. Competition is generally robust, particularly for large-scale, comprehensive support contracts.
What are the potential risks associated with relying on a single contractor for comprehensive facilities support?
Relying on a single contractor for comprehensive facilities support presents several potential risks. Firstly, there's a risk of vendor lock-in, where switching contractors becomes difficult and costly due to specialized knowledge or integrated systems. Secondly, performance can degrade over time if competition is limited or oversight is lax, leading to complacency. Thirdly, a single point of failure exists; if the contractor experiences financial difficulties, labor disputes, or significant operational issues, it could disrupt essential services critical to the agency's mission. Finally, without ongoing competitive pressure, the contractor might have less incentive to innovate or offer cost efficiencies, potentially leading to higher long-term costs for the government.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services › Facilities Support Services › Facilities Support Services
Product/Service Code: OPERATION OF GOVT OWNED FACILITY › OPERATE GOVT OWNED BUILDINGS
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE
Pricing Type: COST PLUS INCENTIVE FEE (V)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Address: 3800 CENTERPOINT DR STE 1200, ANCHORAGE, AK, 99503
Business Categories: Alaskan Native Corporation Owned Firm, Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, 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: $25,648,528
Exercised Options: $25,648,528
Current Obligation: $23,006,814
Actual Outlays: $9,112,069
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED
Cost or Pricing Data: NO
Parent Contract
Parent Award PIID: 80SSC025D0001
IDV Type: IDC
Timeline
Start Date: 2025-07-01
Current End Date: 2026-09-30
Potential End Date: 2026-09-30 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2026-03-26
More Contracts from Nova Space Solutions, LLC
- This Cosmic Task Order IS Created for Funding of the Cost Plus Incentive FEE Clin 9004 of 80ssc025d0001 — $119.0M (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
- This Cosmic Task Order IS Created for Funding of the Cost-Plus-Incentive-Fee Clin 9002 of 80ssc025d0001 — $41.6M (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
- This Cosmic Task Order IS Created for Funding of the Cosmic Core Services for Cost Price Incentive FEE Clin 1004 of 80ssc025d0001 — $18.2M (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
- Combined Operations, Services, Maintenance, and Infrastructure Contract (cosmic) Base Year - Core Firm Fixed Price (FFP) Funding Order — $3.5M (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
- This Cosmic Task Order IS Created for Funding the Cosmic Core Service (site Services) of the Firm Fixed Price Clin 1003 — $3.0M (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
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 →