NASA's $383M facilities support contract to CUBE CORPORATION, spanning over a decade, included diverse services from janitorial to R&D support

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $382,889,101 ($382.9M)

Contractor: Cube Corporation, the

Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Start Date: 2001-07-15

End Date: 2014-03-31

Contract Duration: 4,642 days

Daily Burn Rate: $82.5K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 6

Pricing Type: COST PLUS INCENTIVE FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE SUPPORT IN THE FOLLOWING AREAS: PROGRAM MANAGEMENT FACILITIES ENGINEERING AT WFF OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE OF FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION - BUILDING AND RENOVATION OF BUILDINGS JANITORIAL - CLEANING BUILDINGS GROUNDS SERVICES - CUTTING GRASS CHEMICAL LABORATORY - WATER, ETC. TESTING OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH CLINIC ENVIRONMENTAL AT WFF SECURITY EMERGENCY TELECOMMUNICATIONS - DATA AND PHONE OVERSITE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES LOGISTICS - PACKAGING, ACCESSING EQUIPMENT, VEHICLES NAVY FINANCIAL SERVICES

Place of Performance

Location: WALLOPS ISLAND, ACCOMACK County, VIRGINIA, 23337

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $382.9 million to CUBE CORPORATION, THE for work described as: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE SUPPORT IN THE FOLLOWING AREAS: PROGRAM MANAGEMENT FACILITIES ENGINEERING AT WFF OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE OF FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION - BUILDING AND RENOVATION OF BUILDINGS JANITORIAL - CLEANING BUILDINGS GROUNDS SERVICES - CUTTING GRASS CHEMICAL L… Key points: 1. The contract covered a broad spectrum of services, indicating a comprehensive facilities management approach. 2. A long duration of over 12 years suggests a stable, long-term relationship for essential support functions. 3. The Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) structure aims to incentivize contractor performance and cost control. 4. The contract's value of $383 million over its life reflects significant investment in maintaining NASA's infrastructure. 5. The inclusion of specialized services like an occupational health clinic and environmental support highlights critical operational needs. 6. The contract was awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a robust bidding process.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The total value of $383 million over approximately 12.7 years averages around $30 million annually, which is a substantial but not necessarily excessive amount for comprehensive facilities support at a major federal agency like NASA. Benchmarking against similar large-scale facilities support contracts at federal installations would be necessary for a precise value-for-money assessment. The CPIF contract type suggests an effort to align contractor incentives with government objectives, which is a positive indicator for achieving good 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 bidders had the opportunity to submit proposals. With 6 bidders identified, this suggests a competitive environment that likely contributed to price discovery and potentially better terms for the government. The level of competition is a positive sign for ensuring fair pricing and access to a range of qualified contractors.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive bidding process for a contract of this magnitude helps ensure that taxpayer dollars are used efficiently by driving down costs and encouraging high-quality service delivery.

Public Impact

NASA's facilities and research operations at Wallops Flight Facility (WFF) benefited from continuous support services. Employees and visitors at WFF received essential services including janitorial, grounds maintenance, and occupational health. The contract supported critical infrastructure maintenance and construction, ensuring the operational readiness of NASA's assets. The contract provided a stable employment base for personnel involved in facilities management and support services in Virginia.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Long contract duration could lead to complacency if not actively managed.
CPIF contracts require careful monitoring to ensure incentive targets are appropriate and achievable.
The broad scope of services might present challenges in ensuring consistent quality across all areas.
Potential for scope creep if new requirements are added without proper modification procedures.

Positive Signals

Full and open competition suggests a strong initial vetting of potential contractors.
CPIF contract type incentivizes cost efficiency and performance.
The long-term nature of the contract provides stability for critical support functions.
The comprehensive service offering indicates a holistic approach to facilities management.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Facilities Support Services sector, which is a critical component of government operations, encompassing a wide range of maintenance, management, and operational activities. The market for these services is large and competitive, with numerous providers ranging from small businesses to large corporations. NASA's spending on such services is essential for maintaining its complex research and launch facilities, ensuring safety, and enabling mission success. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically be found in large-scale facility management contracts for other federal agencies with extensive physical infrastructure.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). While the contract itself was not a small business set-aside, the prime contractor, CUBE CORPORATION, may have utilized small businesses for subcontracting opportunities. The extent of small business participation would depend on the contractor's subcontracting plan and adherence to federal small business utilization goals. Without specific subcontracting data, it's difficult to assess the direct impact on the small business ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would have been managed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). As a Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) contract, performance and cost monitoring would be crucial. NASA's contracting officers and technical representatives would be responsible for ensuring adherence to contract terms, quality standards, and budget constraints. Transparency would be facilitated through contract reporting mechanisms and potentially through NASA's Inspector General's office for audits and investigations.

Related Government Programs

NASA Facilities Maintenance Contracts
Federal Facilities Support Services
Government Operations and Maintenance
Space Agency Infrastructure Support
Wallops Flight Facility Operations

Risk Flags

Long contract duration requires sustained oversight.
CPIF contracts need careful monitoring of performance metrics and cost targets.
Broad service scope increases complexity and potential for quality variations.
Potential for contractor performance issues over an extended period.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $382.9 million to CUBE CORPORATION, THE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE SUPPORT IN THE FOLLOWING AREAS: PROGRAM MANAGEMENT FACILITIES ENGINEERING AT WFF OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE OF FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION - BUILDING AND RENOVATION OF BUILDINGS JANITORIAL - CLEANING BUILDINGS GROUNDS SERVICES - CUTTING GRASS CHEMICAL LABORATORY - WATER, ETC. TESTING OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH CLINIC ENVIRONMENTAL AT WFF SECURITY EMERGENCY TELECOMMUNICATIONS - DATA AND PHONE OVERSITE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES LOGISTICS - PACKAGING, ACCESSING EQUIPMENT, VEHIC

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is CUBE CORPORATION, THE.

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 $382.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2001-07-15. End: 2014-03-31.

What was the contractor's performance history with NASA prior to and during this contract?

Assessing CUBE CORPORATION's performance history with NASA requires access to NASA's contract databases and performance evaluation records (e.g., Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System - CPARS). Generally, for a contract of this duration and value, NASA would have maintained records of CUBE CORPORATION's performance, including on-time delivery, quality of services, cost control, and adherence to contract requirements. A positive performance history would typically involve meeting or exceeding performance standards, receiving favorable ratings in past performance evaluations, and demonstrating effective problem-solving. Conversely, negative performance could include documented instances of missed deadlines, subpar service quality, cost overruns, or non-compliance with contract terms. Without direct access to these records, a definitive statement on their performance history is not possible, but the renewal or continuation of such a long-term contract often suggests a generally satisfactory performance record.

How did the final cost compare to the initial estimated cost or target cost for this CPIF contract?

The contract was a Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) type, with a total value of $382,889,101.12. CPIF contracts have a target cost and a target profit, with provisions for sharing cost savings or overruns between the government and the contractor based on pre-defined formulas. To determine how the final cost compared to the initial estimate, one would need to examine the contract's final delivery or modification records. These records would detail the final negotiated cost, the actual costs incurred, and the final profit achieved based on the incentive structure. Without access to these specific financial closure documents, it's impossible to state whether the contract finished under, at, or over its target cost. However, the CPIF structure itself implies an expectation of potential cost variances and a mechanism to manage them.

What were the primary risks identified during the solicitation and award of this contract?

For a large-scale facilities support contract awarded under full and open competition, primary risks typically revolve around contractor performance, cost control, and operational continuity. Potential risks during solicitation might include insufficient competition leading to higher prices, or a lack of qualified bidders capable of meeting NASA's diverse requirements. Post-award risks often include the contractor's ability to manage the complex scope of services effectively, maintain consistent quality across all areas (from janitorial to specialized technical support), and control costs within the CPIF framework. There's also the risk of key personnel turnover, disruptions to service delivery due to unforeseen events, and ensuring compliance with all federal regulations and safety standards. NASA's risk mitigation strategies would likely involve thorough pre-award evaluations of bidder capabilities, robust contract language defining performance standards and remedies, and active contract management throughout its lifecycle.

How effective were the incentive mechanisms in the CPIF contract in controlling costs and improving performance?

The effectiveness of the incentive mechanisms in a Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) contract hinges on the specific design of the incentive clauses, including the target cost, minimum/maximum fee, and the sharing ratio for cost variances. For this NASA contract, the CPIF structure was intended to motivate CUBE CORPORATION to perform efficiently and control costs. If the contractor consistently met or exceeded performance metrics and managed costs effectively, the incentive fee would have been realized. Conversely, if performance lagged or costs significantly exceeded targets, the contractor's fee would be reduced. Evaluating the effectiveness would require analyzing the contractor's performance ratings and the final cost outcomes against the established targets. Without detailed performance data and final cost reports, it's challenging to definitively quantify the success of these incentives, but the CPIF structure itself represents a proactive approach to aligning contractor interests with government objectives.

What is the historical spending trend for facilities support services at NASA's Wallops Flight Facility?

Analyzing the historical spending trend for facilities support services at NASA's Wallops Flight Facility (WFF) would involve examining contract awards for similar services over multiple fiscal years. This $383 million contract, spanning from 2001 to 2014, represents a significant portion of WFF's facilities support expenditure during that period. To understand the trend, one would need to identify all contracts related to facilities operations, maintenance, construction, and related services awarded to WFF over a longer timeframe (e.g., 10-20 years). This would reveal whether spending has been consistent, increasing, or decreasing, and whether it has been concentrated with a few large prime contractors or distributed among various smaller contracts. Such an analysis would help contextualize the scale of this particular contract within NASA's overall budget allocation for WFF infrastructure.

Were there any significant changes in the scope of services required under this contract over its duration?

Contracts of this length (over 12 years) often undergo modifications to adjust to evolving requirements, technological advancements, or changes in agency priorities. Significant changes in the scope of services would typically be documented through contract modifications (e.g., supplemental agreements). These modifications would detail any additions, deletions, or alterations to the original statement of work, along with any corresponding adjustments to the contract price and period of performance. For this contract, it's plausible that services like 'Environmental at WFF' or 'Telecommunications - Data and Phone' may have seen scope changes due to technological evolution or new regulatory requirements. A thorough review of all contract modifications would be necessary to identify and quantify any such scope shifts.

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

Offers Received: 6

Pricing Type: COST PLUS INCENTIVE FEE (V)

Contractor Details

Parent Company: THE Jordan Company L P (UEI: 050381243)

Address: 529 VIKING DRIVE, VIRGINIA BEACH, VA, 23452

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $433,011,286

Exercised Options: $433,011,285

Current Obligation: $382,889,101

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Timeline