NASA's $54.7M contract with LB & B Associates Inc. awarded in 1999 for services in Maryland
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $54,736,754 ($54.7M)
Contractor: LB & B Associates Inc
Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Start Date: 1999-12-15
End Date: 2005-05-31
Contract Duration: 1,994 days
Daily Burn Rate: $27.5K/day
Competition Type: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION
Number of Offers Received: 6
Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE
Sector: R&D
Place of Performance
Location: GREENBELT, PRINCE GEORGE'S County, MARYLAND, 20771
State: Maryland Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $54.7 million to LB & B ASSOCIATES INC for work described as: Key points: 1. Contract value of $54.7 million over its period of performance. 2. Awarded by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). 3. Contract type is Cost Plus Award Fee. 4. Performance period spanned from December 15, 1999, to May 31, 2005. 5. Contract was not competed, raising questions about price discovery. 6. The contract was awarded in Maryland, indicating a specific geographic focus.
Value Assessment
Rating: fair
The contract's Cost Plus Award Fee structure allows for cost reimbursement plus a fee based on performance. Without detailed performance metrics and award fee determinations, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging. Benchmarking against similar cost-plus contracts for aerospace services would be necessary to determine if the pricing was competitive. The total award amount of $54.7 million over approximately 5.5 years suggests a moderate annual spend.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: sole-source
This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning it was not open to competition. This approach is typically used when only one contractor possesses the necessary unique capabilities or when urgency dictates. The lack of competition means that NASA did not benefit from the price reductions or service innovations that competitive bidding often fosters.
Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards can lead to higher costs for taxpayers as there is no market pressure to drive down prices. It also limits opportunities for other capable businesses to secure government contracts.
Public Impact
The contract likely supported NASA's mission-critical operations and research in aerospace. Services provided were essential for maintaining NASA's technological capabilities. The contract's performance in Maryland suggests a direct impact on the local economy and workforce in that region. Beneficiaries include NASA personnel, researchers, and potentially the broader scientific community through advancements enabled by the contract.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Lack of competition may have resulted in suboptimal pricing.
- Cost Plus Award Fee contracts can be complex to manage and audit effectively.
- Sole-source awards limit transparency and accountability compared to competed contracts.
Positive Signals
- Contract was awarded to LB & B Associates Inc., suggesting a specific capability alignment.
- The award fee mechanism, if managed well, incentivizes contractor performance.
- Longer contract durations can provide stability for both the agency and the contractor.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the aerospace and defense sector, a significant area of federal spending. NASA's procurement of specialized services supports its role in space exploration, aeronautics research, and technology development. Comparable spending in this sector involves contracts for engineering, research, development, and support services for complex technological projects. The market is characterized by highly specialized firms with extensive technical expertise.
Small Business Impact
Information regarding small business set-asides or subcontracting plans is not available for this contract. As a sole-source award, it is less likely to have been specifically targeted for small business participation unless LB & B Associates Inc. itself is a small business, which is not indicated. The absence of subcontracting requirements could mean missed opportunities for small businesses to contribute to NASA's projects.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would have been managed by NASA's contracting officers and program managers. The Cost Plus Award Fee structure necessitates robust performance monitoring to ensure the award fee is justified. Transparency is limited due to the sole-source nature. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply to any allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse related to the contract.
Related Government Programs
- NASA Research and Development Contracts
- Aerospace Engineering Services
- Cost Plus Award Fee Contracts
- Sole-Source Aerospace Procurements
Risk Flags
- Sole-source award limits competition and potentially increases costs.
- Cost Plus Award Fee contracts require robust oversight to ensure value.
- Lack of detailed service description hinders performance assessment.
Tags
nasa, aerospace, cost-plus-award-fee, sole-source, maryland, research-and-development, large-contract, 1999, lb-and-b-associates-inc
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $54.7 million to LB & B ASSOCIATES INC. See the official description on USAspending.
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is LB & B ASSOCIATES 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 $54.7 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 1999-12-15. End: 2005-05-31.
What specific services did LB & B Associates Inc. provide under this contract?
The provided data does not specify the exact services rendered by LB & B Associates Inc. under this $54.7 million contract. However, given the agency (NASA) and the contract type (Cost Plus Award Fee), it is highly probable that the services involved specialized technical, engineering, research, or support functions critical to NASA's missions. These could range from systems engineering and integration, software development, scientific research support, to operational support for specific NASA programs or facilities. Further investigation into NASA's contract databases or program documentation would be required to ascertain the precise scope of work.
How does the $54.7 million contract value compare to similar NASA contracts for aerospace support services?
The total contract value of $54.7 million over its approximately 5.5-year period (December 1999 to May 2005) represents an average annual expenditure of roughly $9.9 million. This figure is moderate within the context of NASA's overall budget and the scale of its major programs. To provide a precise comparison, one would need to benchmark against other Cost Plus Award Fee contracts awarded by NASA during a similar timeframe for comparable services, such as systems engineering, research support, or specialized technical assistance. Without such detailed comparative data, it's difficult to definitively state whether this contract represented high or low value relative to the market.
What are the primary risks associated with a sole-source Cost Plus Award Fee contract like this one?
The primary risks associated with this sole-source Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract are twofold. Firstly, the sole-source nature eliminates competitive pressure, potentially leading to higher costs for the government than if the contract had been competed. There is less incentive for the contractor to offer the lowest possible price. Secondly, the CPAF structure, while designed to incentivize performance, carries risks if not managed rigorously. If the award fee criteria are not clearly defined, objectively measured, or if oversight is weak, the government might pay higher fees than warranted by actual performance, or the contractor may not be sufficiently motivated to exceed basic performance levels. Effective oversight and clear performance metrics are crucial to mitigate these risks.
What was the historical spending pattern for LB & B Associates Inc. with NASA prior to or during this contract?
The provided data does not include historical spending patterns for LB & B Associates Inc. with NASA. This specific contract, awarded in December 1999, represents a significant award amount ($54.7 million) over a substantial period. To understand historical spending, one would need to access contract databases that track awards to specific contractors over time. This would reveal if LB & B Associates Inc. was a frequent or new contractor for NASA, and whether this contract was an anomaly or part of a larger engagement. Without this historical context, it's impossible to assess trends in their relationship with NASA.
How effective was the award fee mechanism in ensuring contractor performance for this NASA contract?
The effectiveness of the award fee mechanism in ensuring contractor performance cannot be determined solely from the provided data. The Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure is intended to incentivize superior performance by allowing the contractor to earn a fee above the base fee, contingent upon meeting or exceeding pre-defined performance objectives. However, the success of this mechanism hinges entirely on the clarity and measurability of the award criteria, the rigor of NASA's performance evaluations, and the fairness of the fee determination process. Without access to NASA's performance reviews and the actual award fees paid to LB & B Associates Inc., it is impossible to assess whether the mechanism effectively drove performance or simply resulted in higher costs.
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION
Offers Received: 6
Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE (R)
Contractor Details
Address: 9891 BROKENLAND PKWY, COLUMBIA, MD, 03
Business Categories: 8(a) Program Participant, Asian Pacific American Owned Business, Category Business, Minority Owned Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business, Woman Owned Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $54,736,754
Exercised Options: $54,736,754
Current Obligation: $54,736,754
Timeline
Start Date: 1999-12-15
Current End Date: 2005-05-31
Potential End Date: 2005-05-31 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2013-05-08
More Contracts from LB & B Associates Inc
- !8502082603!conus Goco Stora — $105.2M (Department of Defense)
- CI Support Cislant Task Order — $85.1M (Department of Defense)
- Contractor Instructional Services (CIS) to BE Performed by Contractor Instructors (CI) in Support of Naval AIR Force U.S. Atlantic Fleet (cislant) — $81.7M (Department of Defense)
- Consolidated Facilities Maintenance (CFM) Services for Archives I and Archives II — $77.9M (National Archives and Records Administration)
- Complete Facilities Maintenance (CFM) Services AT Archives I and II Igf::ot::igf — $77.6M (National Archives and Records 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 →