Commerce Department awards $14.2M modification for space research, extending contract duration

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $14,217,674 ($14.2M)

Contractor: THE Aerospace Corporation

Awarding Agency: Department of Commerce

Start Date: 2007-02-23

End Date: 2007-11-30

Contract Duration: 280 days

Daily Burn Rate: $50.8K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: R&D

Official Description: MODIFICATION TO ADD FUNDING

Place of Performance

Location: SILVER SPRING, MONTGOMERY County, MARYLAND, 20910

State: Maryland Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Commerce obligated $14.2 million to THE AEROSPACE CORPORATION for work described as: MODIFICATION TO ADD FUNDING Key points: 1. Contract modification adds significant funding, indicating potential scope expansion or cost adjustments. 2. The contract was awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 3. The contractor, The Aerospace Corporation, has a history with this type of work. 4. The contract's duration has been extended, implying ongoing or expanded needs. 5. The fixed-fee structure provides some cost control, but the 'cost plus' element carries inherent risk. 6. The specific services under this modification require further detail to fully assess value.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The modification adds $14.2 million to the contract. Without knowing the original contract value or the specific services this funding covers, a direct value-for-money assessment is difficult. However, the 'cost plus fixed fee' structure can sometimes lead to higher costs than fixed-price contracts if not managed tightly. Benchmarking against similar space research and technology contracts would be necessary for a more precise valuation.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded through full and open competition, indicating that multiple bidders were likely considered. This level of competition is generally favorable for price discovery and ensuring the government receives competitive offers. The number of bidders and the specific evaluation criteria would provide further insight into the strength of the competition.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition typically benefits taxpayers by driving down prices and encouraging innovation from a wider pool of contractors.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiary is likely the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and its space-related research initiatives. Services delivered likely pertain to space research and technology development, supporting NOAA's mission. The geographic impact is primarily national, supporting federal research infrastructure. Workforce implications may include specialized technical and scientific roles within the contractor's organization.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Cost-plus contracts can incentivize spending if not rigorously overseen.
The extension of the contract duration warrants scrutiny to ensure continued necessity and efficiency.
Lack of specific detail on the modification's purpose makes value assessment challenging.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a competitive process.
The contractor, The Aerospace Corporation, is a known entity in the aerospace sector.
The fixed-fee component provides some level of cost predictability.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the 'Space Research and Technology' sector, a specialized area within the broader aerospace industry. This sector is characterized by high R&D investment, long development cycles, and significant government procurement. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve looking at other NOAA or NASA contracts for similar research and technology development services, often measured in the tens to hundreds of millions of dollars over the life of major programs.

Small Business Impact

The provided data does not indicate any small business set-aside or subcontracting requirements for this specific modification. Analysis of the prime contractor's (The Aerospace Corporation) subcontracting plan would be necessary to determine potential impacts on the small business ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight would typically be managed by the contracting officer and program managers within NOAA. Accountability measures are embedded in the contract terms, including performance requirements and financial reporting. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract databases like FPDS, though specific details of the modification's purpose might require further inquiry.

Related Government Programs

NOAA Satellite Operations
NASA Space Technology Programs
DoD Space Systems Development
National Science Foundation Research Grants

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns inherent in cost-plus contracts.
Lack of specific detail on modification purpose hinders full value assessment.
Extended contract duration requires justification for continued need and efficiency.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Commerce awarded $14.2 million to THE AEROSPACE CORPORATION. MODIFICATION TO ADD FUNDING

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is THE AEROSPACE CORPORATION.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Commerce (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $14.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2007-02-23. End: 2007-11-30.

What specific services or research objectives does this $14.2 million modification fund?

The provided data indicates the modification is for 'MODIFICATION TO ADD FUNDING' for 'Space Research and Technology' under contract number 927110. However, the specific nature of the research, the objectives being funded, or the deliverables associated with this $14.2 million increase are not detailed in the summary data. To fully assess the value and impact, a review of the modification's statement of work (SOW) or accompanying documentation would be necessary. This would clarify whether the funds are for extended research, new research avenues, addressing unforeseen technical challenges, or increased operational costs.

How does the 'cost plus fixed fee' pricing structure compare to other contracts for similar space research and technology services?

Cost-plus fixed fee (CPFF) contracts are common in R&D where the scope is not fully defined at the outset, allowing flexibility. However, they carry a risk of cost overruns as the contractor is reimbursed for actual costs plus a fixed fee. Compared to fixed-price contracts, CPFF can be more expensive for the government if costs escalate significantly. Benchmarking against similar R&D contracts would reveal if the total estimated cost, including the fixed fee, is competitive. A high number of bidders in the initial competition might suggest that the pricing structure was deemed acceptable within the market.

What is the track record of The Aerospace Corporation with NOAA or similar government agencies for space research contracts?

The Aerospace Corporation is a federally funded research and development center (FFRDC) with extensive experience in space systems engineering and program management, often supporting government agencies like NOAA, NASA, and the Department of Defense. Their track record typically involves complex, long-term projects. For NOAA specifically, they have likely been involved in various aspects of space-based environmental monitoring and research. A detailed review of their past performance ratings on similar contracts, including any past performance issues or commendations, would provide a clearer picture of their reliability and effectiveness in this domain.

What were the key factors that led to the extension of the contract duration and the addition of funding?

The data indicates a modification to add funding and extend the contract duration. The reasons for such modifications can vary widely. They might stem from evolving research requirements, the discovery of new scientific opportunities, unforeseen technical challenges requiring additional resources, or a need for extended data collection or analysis. The original contract duration was 280 days, and this modification likely extends it significantly beyond that initial period. Understanding the specific drivers behind these changes is crucial for assessing whether the contract remains aligned with strategic objectives and represents good value.

How does the $14.2 million funding increase compare to the original contract value and historical spending patterns for this program?

The provided data shows the modification amount ($14.2 million) but not the original contract value or total obligated amount prior to this modification. To assess the significance of this increase, one would need to know the original award amount and any previous modifications. If this $14.2 million represents a substantial percentage increase (e.g., over 25-50%), it warrants closer examination. Historical spending patterns for the underlying program or contract vehicle would also provide context, indicating whether this level of funding is typical or an anomaly.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Public Administration › Space Research and Technology › Space Research and Technology

Product/Service Code: SUPPORT SVCS (PROF, ADMIN, MGMT) › PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 2350 E EL SEGUNDO BLVD, EL SEGUNDO, CA, 36

Business Categories: Category Business, Nonprofit Organization, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $14,217,674

Exercised Options: $14,217,674

Current Obligation: $14,217,674

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: DOCDG133E07CQ0005

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline