Raytheon Company awarded $23.4M NASA contract for scientific data analysis and software support
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $23,375,001 ($23.4M)
Contractor: Raytheon Company
Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Start Date: 1994-02-15
End Date: 2000-07-15
Contract Duration: 2,342 days
Daily Burn Rate: $10.0K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Number of Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE
Sector: R&D
Official Description: GEODYNAMICS SCIENTIFIC DATA ANALYSIS AND SOFTWARE SUPPORT SERVICES
Place of Performance
Location: GREENBELT, PRINCE GEORGES County, MARYLAND, 20771
State: Maryland Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $23.4 million to RAYTHEON COMPANY for work described as: GEODYNAMICS SCIENTIFIC DATA ANALYSIS AND SOFTWARE SUPPORT SERVICES Key points: 1. Contract awarded for scientific data analysis and software support services. 2. Long-term contract spanning over six years. 3. Services provided to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). 4. Contract type is Cost Plus Fixed Fee, indicating potential for cost overruns. 5. Awarded under full and open competition. 6. Contractor has a significant history with NASA. 7. Services are critical for ongoing space exploration and research.
Value Assessment
Rating: fair
The contract value of $23.4 million over six years suggests a moderate annual spend. Without specific performance metrics or comparable contracts for similar scientific data analysis and software support, it is difficult to definitively benchmark value for money. The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type, while allowing for flexibility, can sometimes lead to higher costs compared to fixed-price contracts if not managed tightly. Further analysis would require understanding the scope of work and the specific services provided.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: full-and-open
This contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that multiple bidders had the opportunity to submit proposals. The specifics of the number of bidders are not provided, but this method generally fosters a competitive environment, which can lead to better pricing and service offerings for the government. The agency sought proposals from all responsible sources.
Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is generally favorable for taxpayers as it is expected to drive down costs through market forces and encourage innovation among potential contractors.
Public Impact
NASA scientists and researchers benefit from the continuity of data analysis and software support. Enables continued progress in space exploration and scientific discovery. Supports critical infrastructure for managing and interpreting vast amounts of scientific data. Potential for workforce implications within the contractor's organization supporting these specialized services.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- CPFF contract type can lead to cost uncertainty if not closely monitored.
- Long contract duration may reduce flexibility to adapt to changing technological needs.
- Lack of specific performance metrics makes value assessment challenging.
Positive Signals
- Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting competitive pricing.
- Contractor has a long-standing relationship with NASA, implying expertise.
- Services are essential for NASA's core mission objectives.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the Information Technology and Professional Services sector, specifically supporting scientific research and development. The market for such specialized data analysis and software support is often dominated by large aerospace and defense contractors with deep technical expertise. Benchmarking would require comparing this contract's annual value against similar support services for government scientific agencies.
Small Business Impact
There is no indication that this contract included small business set-asides. Given the specialized nature of scientific data analysis and software support, it is likely that the prime contractor, Raytheon Company, will manage the majority of the work. Subcontracting opportunities for small businesses may exist but are not explicitly detailed in the provided data.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by NASA's contracting officers and program managers. The Cost Plus Fixed Fee structure necessitates diligent oversight to ensure costs remain reasonable and that the fixed fee is earned. Transparency is generally maintained through contract reporting requirements, though specific public access to detailed performance or cost data may be limited.
Related Government Programs
- NASA Research and Development Contracts
- Scientific Data Management Services
- Aerospace Software Development
- Government IT Support Services
Risk Flags
- Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract type carries inherent cost overrun risk.
- Long contract duration may lead to technological obsolescence if not managed.
- Lack of specific performance metrics makes objective value assessment difficult.
Tags
nasa, scientific-data-analysis, software-support, definitive-contract, cost-plus-fixed-fee, full-and-open-competition, raytheon-company, research-and-development, information-technology, aerospace, maryland
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $23.4 million to RAYTHEON COMPANY. GEODYNAMICS SCIENTIFIC DATA ANALYSIS AND SOFTWARE SUPPORT SERVICES
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is RAYTHEON COMPANY.
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 $23.4 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 1994-02-15. End: 2000-07-15.
What is Raytheon Company's track record with NASA on similar contracts?
Raytheon Company, now part of RTX, has a long and extensive history of contracting with NASA and other government agencies for a wide range of services, including scientific support, software development, and systems engineering. Their track record with NASA likely includes numerous successful awards and contract fulfillments over several decades. Given the duration of this specific contract (1994-2000), it suggests a level of trust and proven capability that NASA found valuable. Specific details on past performance metrics, such as on-time delivery, cost control, and technical quality for prior NASA contracts, would provide a more granular understanding of their reliability and expertise in this domain.
How does the annual value of this contract compare to similar NASA data analysis contracts?
The annual value of this contract, approximately $3.9 million ($23.4 million / 6 years), is moderate for specialized scientific data analysis and software support services within a large agency like NASA. However, without knowing the precise scope of work, the complexity of the data, and the specific software requirements, a direct comparison is challenging. Contracts for large-scale scientific missions or complex simulation software development could easily exceed this annual figure. Conversely, simpler data processing tasks might be awarded at lower values. To benchmark effectively, one would need to identify contracts with similar technical requirements, duration, and agency focus.
What are the primary risks associated with a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract for this type of service?
The primary risk with a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract for scientific data analysis and software support is the potential for cost overruns. While the contractor is reimbursed for allowable costs, the fixed fee provides a set profit margin. If costs escalate significantly beyond initial estimates due to unforeseen technical challenges, scope creep, or inefficient performance, the government bears the brunt of these increased expenses. This structure can disincentivize the contractor from aggressively controlling costs, as their profit is fixed regardless of the final cost. Effective oversight and clear definition of allowable costs are crucial to mitigate these risks.
How effective is this contract in supporting NASA's long-term scientific objectives?
This contract is likely effective in supporting NASA's long-term scientific objectives by providing essential, continuous support for data analysis and software maintenance. Scientific endeavors, particularly in space exploration, generate vast amounts of data that require ongoing processing, interpretation, and management. Software systems underpinning these operations also need regular updates and support. By securing a long-term contract for these services, NASA ensures stability and expertise are available, preventing disruptions that could hinder research progress. The continuity of service allows scientists to focus on research rather than the intricacies of data management and software infrastructure.
What are historical spending patterns for NASA's scientific data analysis and software support?
Historical spending patterns for NASA's scientific data analysis and software support reveal a consistent and significant investment in these areas, reflecting the agency's core mission. NASA relies heavily on advanced computing and data processing capabilities to manage the immense datasets generated by its missions, from Earth observation to deep space exploration. Spending in this category typically fluctuates based on the lifecycle of major missions and the development of new research initiatives. Over the years, NASA has awarded numerous contracts, ranging from small, specialized tasks to large, multi-year programs, to various contractors, including major aerospace firms, to ensure the necessary analytical and software infrastructure is maintained and advanced.
What are the implications of the contract's duration (over 6 years) for technological relevance?
A contract duration of over six years for scientific data analysis and software support carries implications for technological relevance. While long-term contracts provide stability and allow for deep institutional knowledge to develop, the rapid pace of technological advancement, particularly in software and data analytics, can pose a challenge. There's a risk that the technologies and methodologies employed under the contract may become outdated before its completion. To mitigate this, contracts often include provisions for technology refresh, periodic reviews, and the incorporation of new advancements. NASA would need to ensure that Raytheon is incentivized and capable of adapting to evolving technological landscapes throughout the contract's life.
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)
Contractor Details
Address: 22270 PACIFIC BLVD STE 600, DULLES, VA, 20166
Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED
Timeline
Start Date: 1994-02-15
Current End Date: 2000-07-15
Potential End Date: 2000-07-15 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2021-11-03
More Contracts from Raytheon Company
- Federal Contract — $5.7B (Department of Defense)
- TEN Fire Units for Qatar — $5.6B (Department of Defense)
- GPS Advanced Control Segment (OCX) Phase B Blocks 1 and 2 — $4.5B (Department of Defense)
- An/Spy-6(v) Hardware Production — $3.3B (Department of Defense)
- Predominant - Patriot UAE — $3.0B (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 →