NASA's $16.8M contract for advanced concepts management shows fair value, but limited competition raises concerns

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $16,785,729 ($16.8M)

Contractor: Universities Space Research Association

Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Start Date: 2003-06-15

End Date: 2007-08-31

Contract Duration: 1,538 days

Daily Burn Rate: $10.9K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: R&D

Official Description: OPERATION & MANAGEMENT OF THE NASA INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED CONCEPTS

Place of Performance

Location: COLUMBIA, HOWARD County, MARYLAND, 21044

State: Maryland Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $16.8 million to UNIVERSITIES SPACE RESEARCH ASSOCIATION for work described as: OPERATION & MANAGEMENT OF THE NASA INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED CONCEPTS Key points: 1. The contract's value appears reasonable given the specialized nature of managing advanced concepts. 2. Competition was limited, potentially impacting price discovery and taxpayer value. 3. The contractor has a history with NASA, suggesting some level of performance reliability. 4. The contract duration of over 4 years indicates a significant, ongoing need. 5. This contract fits within NASA's broader R&D and innovation support sector. 6. The cost-plus-fixed-fee structure requires careful oversight to manage costs effectively.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract's total value of $16.8 million over approximately 4 years suggests a moderate annual spend. Benchmarking against similar contracts for managing research institutes or advanced concept programs is challenging without more specific data on deliverables and scope. However, the cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) pricing structure, while common for research and development, can lead to cost overruns if not rigorously managed. The fixed fee component provides some incentive for the contractor to control costs, but the overall value proposition depends heavily on the effective management and outcomes achieved by the Universities Space Research Association.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit offers. However, the data indicates only two bids were received. While full and open competition is the preferred method, a low number of bids can sometimes suggest a niche market or high barriers to entry, potentially limiting the competitive pressure on pricing. The agency's process for soliciting and evaluating these bids would be crucial in determining if adequate competition was achieved.

Taxpayer Impact: While full and open competition was utilized, the low number of bidders suggests that taxpayers may not have benefited from the most aggressive pricing possible. This could translate to a higher overall cost for the services rendered compared to a scenario with more robust competition.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are NASA's research and development initiatives, which gain support in managing advanced concepts. The contract supports the operational and management functions of the NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts. The geographic impact is primarily centered around the contractor's location and NASA's research facilities. The contract likely supports a workforce of researchers, administrators, and technical staff involved in concept evaluation and management.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Positive Signals

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Research and Development (R&D) sector, specifically focusing on the management and operational aspects of an advanced concepts institute. The R&D services market is characterized by specialized expertise, often involving academic institutions or dedicated research organizations. NASA's spending in this area supports its mission to explore space and advance aeronautics and space science. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve contracts for managing research programs, innovation hubs, or specialized scientific support services within government agencies or large private sector R&D entities.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications or specific impacts on the small business ecosystem stemming from a set-aside provision. The primary contractor is a university-affiliated organization, suggesting a focus on specialized research capabilities rather than broad small business engagement.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). As a Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract, rigorous financial oversight is crucial to monitor expenditures and ensure the fixed fee is justified by performance. Accountability measures would be tied to the achievement of milestones and deliverables outlined in the contract. Transparency would be enhanced through contract award databases and potentially through NASA's public reporting on its research initiatives. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Risk Flags

Tags

nasa, research-and-development, engineering-services, full-and-open-competition, definitive-contract, cost-plus-fixed-fee, operation-and-management, maryland, university-research, advanced-concepts

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $16.8 million to UNIVERSITIES SPACE RESEARCH ASSOCIATION. OPERATION & MANAGEMENT OF THE NASA INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED CONCEPTS

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is UNIVERSITIES SPACE RESEARCH ASSOCIATION.

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 $16.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2003-06-15. End: 2007-08-31.

What specific management and operational services were provided under this contract?

The contract was for the 'OPERATION & MANAGEMENT OF THE NASA INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED CONCEPTS'. This typically involves administrative support, financial management, personnel oversight, coordination of research activities, facilitation of concept development and evaluation, and ensuring compliance with NASA regulations and policies. The Institute for Advanced Concepts (NIAC) itself focuses on identifying and promoting transformative ideas that could lead to breakthroughs in space exploration and technology. Therefore, the contractor's role would be to enable NIAC's mission by providing the necessary infrastructure and management expertise to support its operations and outreach.

How does the annual spending on this contract compare to similar NASA R&D management contracts?

The total contract value of approximately $16.8 million over roughly 4 years (1538 days) equates to an average annual spend of about $4.2 million. Benchmarking this against similar NASA R&D management contracts is difficult without more granular data on the scope, complexity, and specific services provided by other institutes or programs. However, for managing specialized research initiatives or institutes, this annual figure appears to be within a moderate range. Contracts for larger, more comprehensive research programs or those involving extensive laboratory facilities could command significantly higher annual expenditures.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) or deliverables expected from the contractor?

While specific KPIs are not detailed in the provided data, typical deliverables for a contract managing an advanced concepts institute would include regular operational reports, financial statements, progress updates on concept evaluations, successful facilitation of workshops or symposia, and adherence to program timelines. Performance would likely be assessed based on the efficiency of operations, the quality of support provided to NIAC's mission, and the effective management of resources. NASA would monitor these aspects through contract reviews and performance evaluations.

What is the track record of Universities Space Research Association (USRA) with NASA and similar contracts?

Universities Space Research Association (USRA) is a non-profit consortium of universities, established to help its member institutions and their students play a meaningful role in advancing space science and technology. USRA has a long history of working with NASA and other government agencies on research, education, and management support contracts. Their experience typically involves managing complex scientific programs, operating research facilities, and providing technical expertise. This background suggests USRA possesses the institutional capacity and domain knowledge to effectively manage NASA's Institute for Advanced Concepts.

What are the potential risks associated with the Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type for this service?

The primary risk with a CPFF contract is that the contractor may not have a strong incentive to control costs beyond what is necessary to achieve the fixed fee, as the government agrees to cover all allowable costs. This can lead to cost overruns if the initial cost estimates are inaccurate or if project scope changes significantly. For this contract, NASA would need robust oversight to ensure that all costs incurred are reasonable, allocable, and allowable, and that the fixed fee adequately compensates USRA for its management services without being excessive. Effective monitoring of expenditures and performance is key to mitigating these risks.

How does the limited number of bidders (2) impact the government's ability to secure competitive pricing?

A limited number of bidders, even under full and open competition, can reduce the competitive pressure on pricing. When only two entities submit proposals, the government has fewer options to compare and negotiate with. This scenario might arise if the market for managing such specialized institutes is small, or if there are high barriers to entry (e.g., specific expertise, security clearances, established relationships). While the government still negotiates, the leverage is generally lower than with multiple, highly competitive bids. This could result in a higher price than might be achieved in a more crowded marketplace.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical ServicesArchitectural, Engineering, and Related ServicesEngineering Services

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

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Contractor Details

Address: 10227 WINCOPIN CIR # 212, COLUMBIA, MD, 21044

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $16,785,729

Exercised Options: $16,785,729

Current Obligation: $16,785,729

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Timeline

Start Date: 2003-06-15

Current End Date: 2007-08-31

Potential End Date: 2007-08-31 00:00:00

Last Modified: 2024-09-06

More Contracts from Universities Space Research Association

View all Universities Space Research Association federal contracts →

Other National Aeronautics and Space Administration Contracts

View all National Aeronautics and Space Administration contracts →

Explore Related Government Spending