NASA's $46.5M occupational safety contract with PAI Corporation awarded under full and open competition
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $46,456,962 ($46.5M)
Contractor: PAI Corporation
Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Start Date: 2000-03-02
End Date: 2006-05-31
Contract Duration: 2,281 days
Daily Burn Rate: $20.4K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Number of Offers Received: 2
Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE
Sector: Other
Official Description: OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY, INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE, ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPORT AND MEDICAL SERVICES
Place of Performance
Location: MOFFETT FIELD, SANTA CLARA County, CALIFORNIA, 94035, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plain-Language Summary
National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $46.5 million to PAI CORPORATION for work described as: OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY, INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE, ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPORT AND MEDICAL SERVICES Key points: 1. Contract value represents a significant investment in ensuring a safe and healthy work environment for NASA personnel. 2. The cost-plus-award-fee structure incentivizes contractor performance while allowing for flexibility in cost reimbursement. 3. The duration of the contract (2000-2006) suggests a long-term need for these specialized services. 4. Awarded by NASA's Space Flight Operations Mission Directorate, indicating a focus on critical operational support. 5. The contract was not set aside for small businesses, suggesting a focus on large, capable prime contractors. 6. The services provided are essential for regulatory compliance and risk mitigation in complex operational settings.
Value Assessment
Rating: good
Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging without specific performance metrics and detailed cost breakdowns. However, the total award of over $46 million across approximately six years for comprehensive occupational safety, industrial hygiene, and environmental support suggests a substantial but potentially reasonable investment for a federal agency like NASA. The cost-plus-award-fee (CPAF) pricing structure allows for cost reimbursement plus a performance-based fee, which can be effective in incentivizing high performance. Without comparable contract data for similar services at NASA or other agencies, a precise value-for-money assessment is difficult, but the duration and scope indicate a significant commitment to these critical support functions.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: full-and-open
This contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. The presence of two bids suggests a competitive process, though the exact number of interested parties and the rigor of the evaluation are not detailed. Full and open competition generally promotes price discovery and allows the government to select the best value offering from a wide pool of potential contractors. The fact that PAI Corporation was selected implies their proposal met or exceeded the evaluation criteria set forth in the solicitation.
Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers benefit from full and open competition through potentially lower prices and higher quality services due to the pressure on contractors to be competitive. This approach ensures that federal funds are used efficiently by leveraging market forces to drive value.
Public Impact
NASA employees and contractors benefit from enhanced occupational safety, industrial hygiene, and medical services, contributing to a safer work environment. The contract supports critical NASA missions by ensuring the health and safety of personnel involved in space flight operations. Services likely have a broad geographic impact across NASA facilities where these specialized support functions are required. The contract supports a workforce of professionals in occupational safety, industrial hygiene, and environmental services, both within the contractor's organization and potentially through subcontracting.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Potential for cost overruns inherent in cost-plus contracts if not managed tightly.
- Ensuring consistent service quality across all NASA facilities covered by the contract.
- Dependence on contractor expertise for critical safety and environmental compliance.
Positive Signals
- Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a competitive selection process.
- Long contract duration implies a stable and reliable provision of essential services.
- Cost-plus-award-fee structure incentivizes contractor performance and quality.
Sector Analysis
The occupational safety, industrial hygiene, and environmental services sector is crucial for government agencies and private industry to ensure regulatory compliance, mitigate risks, and protect workforce health. This contract falls within the broader Facilities Support Services industry, which encompasses a wide range of services necessary for the operation and maintenance of government facilities. Spending in this sector is driven by federal mandates, safety regulations, and the operational needs of agencies like NASA. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing contracts for similar support services across various federal agencies, considering factors like contract size, duration, and scope of services.
Small Business Impact
This contract was not awarded as a small business set-aside, nor is there information indicating significant subcontracting opportunities for small businesses. The prime contractor, PAI Corporation, is likely a larger entity capable of fulfilling the comprehensive requirements of this federal contract. The absence of specific small business set-aside provisions suggests that the primary focus was on securing the most capable and experienced contractor for these specialized services, potentially limiting direct opportunities for small businesses as prime contractors on this specific award.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would have been managed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). As a Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract, performance metrics and deliverables would be closely monitored to determine the award fee. NASA's contracting officers and technical representatives would be responsible for ensuring compliance with contract terms, quality standards, and budget adherence. Transparency would be facilitated through contract reporting requirements and potentially through NASA's public contract databases, although specific oversight details are not provided in the data.
Related Government Programs
- NASA Occupational Health Program
- Federal Employee Health and Safety Programs
- Environmental Compliance Services Contracts
- Industrial Hygiene Services
- Facilities Management Contracts
Risk Flags
- Cost-plus contracts can lead to higher costs if not managed effectively.
- Long-term contracts may reduce flexibility to adapt to changing needs or technologies.
- Dependence on a single contractor for critical safety services poses a risk.
Tags
nasa, occupational-safety, industrial-hygiene, environmental-support, medical-services, pai-corporation, facilities-support-services, cost-plus-award-fee, full-and-open-competition, california, space-flight-operations
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $46.5 million to PAI CORPORATION. OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY, INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE, ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPORT AND MEDICAL SERVICES
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is PAI CORPORATION.
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 $46.5 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2000-03-02. End: 2006-05-31.
What was the specific performance criteria used to determine the award fee for PAI Corporation under this Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract?
The provided data does not specify the exact performance criteria used for determining the award fee under this contract. Typically, for CPAF contracts, award fees are tied to achieving specific, measurable performance objectives outlined in the contract's Performance Work Statement (PWS). These criteria often include factors such as timeliness of service delivery, quality of work, adherence to safety standards, responsiveness to NASA requests, and overall customer satisfaction. NASA's contracting officer would have evaluated PAI Corporation's performance against these pre-defined metrics to determine the amount of the award fee, aiming to incentivize superior performance beyond minimum requirements. Without access to the contract's PWS or performance evaluation reports, the precise metrics remain unknown.
How does the per-unit cost of services provided by PAI Corporation compare to industry benchmarks for similar occupational safety and industrial hygiene services?
A direct per-unit cost comparison is not feasible with the provided data, as it lacks specific details on the units of service delivered (e.g., number of inspections, hours of consultation, types of medical tests performed) and their associated costs. The total contract value of approximately $46.5 million over roughly 6 years (2281 days) for comprehensive services suggests a significant investment. To benchmark, one would need to identify specific service line items, their quantities, and unit prices, and then compare these against established industry cost guides, similar government contracts, or commercial pricing for comparable services. Factors like geographic location, complexity of the work environment (e.g., unique hazards at NASA facilities), and the level of expertise required would heavily influence such comparisons, making a simple benchmark difficult without more granular data.
What were the primary risks identified during the solicitation and award process for this contract, and how were they mitigated?
The provided data does not detail the specific risks identified during the solicitation and award process for this contract. However, common risks associated with large federal service contracts include contractor performance failures, cost overruns, schedule delays, security breaches, and failure to meet regulatory compliance. For a contract involving occupational safety, industrial hygiene, and environmental support, risks might also include inadequate hazard identification, improper handling of hazardous materials, or insufficient emergency response planning. Mitigation strategies typically involve thorough pre-award evaluations of contractor capabilities and past performance, clear and comprehensive contract requirements, robust oversight mechanisms, and contingency planning. The use of a CPAF structure itself can be a risk mitigation tool, incentivizing the contractor to perform well and proactively address potential issues.
What is the historical spending pattern for occupational safety, industrial hygiene, and environmental support services at NASA, and how does this contract fit within that pattern?
The provided data offers a snapshot of one contract ($46.5M from 2000-2006) but does not provide a comprehensive historical spending pattern for these services at NASA. To establish such a pattern, one would need to analyze NASA's spending data over multiple fiscal years, identifying all contracts related to occupational safety, industrial hygiene, and environmental support. This analysis would reveal trends in contract values, types of services procured, and the number of contractors utilized. This specific contract, awarded in 2000, represents a significant investment during its period of performance. Understanding its place within the broader historical context would require comparing its value and scope against previous and subsequent contracts for similar services to identify any increases, decreases, or shifts in procurement strategies.
What was the track record of PAI Corporation prior to being awarded this NASA contract, particularly regarding similar federal contracts?
The provided data identifies PAI Corporation as the contractor but does not include details about their prior track record or performance on previous federal contracts. A thorough assessment of their track record would involve reviewing past performance evaluations (e.g., Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System - CPARS), other federal contract awards to PAI Corporation, and any reported issues or successes. For a contract of this magnitude and criticality, NASA would have likely conducted a pre-award assessment of PAI Corporation's past performance, financial stability, and technical capabilities to ensure they were a responsible source capable of fulfilling the contract requirements. Without access to these specific pre-award assessments or historical contract databases, PAI Corporation's specific track record remains outside the scope of the provided information.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services › Facilities Support Services › Facilities Support Services
Product/Service Code: NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT › NATURAL RESOURCES - OTHER SVCS
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Offers Received: 2
Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE (R)
Contractor Details
Address: 116 MILAN WAY, OAK RIDGE, TN, 37830
Business Categories: Asian Pacific American Owned Business, Category Business, Minority Owned Business, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business, Woman Owned Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $46,456,959
Exercised Options: $46,456,959
Current Obligation: $46,456,962
Timeline
Start Date: 2000-03-02
Current End Date: 2006-05-31
Potential End Date: 2006-05-31 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2015-06-01
More Contracts from PAI Corporation
- Safeguards and Security Systems — $20.7M (Department of Energy)
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 →