NASA's $21.9M contract with OAO Corporation for IT services shows a long-term commitment with a focus on firm fixed-price terms
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $21,944,285 ($21.9M)
Contractor: OAO Corporation
Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Start Date: 1999-10-15
End Date: 2004-08-31
Contract Duration: 1,782 days
Daily Burn Rate: $12.3K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Number of Offers Received: 2
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE
Sector: IT
Place of Performance
Location: HOUSTON, HARRIS County, TEXAS, 77058
State: Texas Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $21.9 million to OAO CORPORATION for work described as: Key points: 1. The contract's duration of over 1700 days suggests a need for sustained IT support, potentially indicating stable requirements. 2. A firm fixed-price structure aims to control costs by shifting risk to the contractor, but requires careful initial scope definition. 3. The award was made under full and open competition, suggesting a competitive process that should yield fair market pricing. 4. The contract's value, while significant, needs to be benchmarked against similar IT service contracts to assess value for money. 5. The absence of small business set-aside flags suggests this contract was not specifically targeted to boost small business participation. 6. The contract's completion date in 2004 means current performance data is unavailable, limiting real-time assessment.
Value Assessment
Rating: fair
Benchmarking the $21.9 million value against similar IT service contracts awarded by NASA or other federal agencies during the late 1990s and early 2000s would be necessary for a comprehensive value assessment. The firm fixed-price (FFP) contract type suggests an attempt to lock in costs, but without detailed performance metrics or comparison data, it's difficult to definitively state if the pricing was optimal. The contract's duration implies a substantial scope of work, and the final cost should reflect the delivered services and their quality.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: full-and-open
This contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit a bid. The fact that it was competed suggests that NASA sought to leverage market forces to obtain the best value. The number of bidders is not specified, but a competitive process generally leads to better price discovery and potentially lower costs for the government compared to sole-source or limited competition scenarios.
Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers benefit from a competitive process as it typically drives down prices and encourages contractors to offer more efficient solutions to win the bid.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiaries are likely NASA's IT infrastructure and operations, which received essential support services. The contract supported the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's mission-critical functions through the provision of IT services. The geographic impact is centered around NASA facilities, likely in Texas where the contractor is based, but the exact locations of service delivery are not specified. The contract supported a workforce employed by OAO Corporation, contributing to IT sector employment.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Contract awarded in 1999 and completed in 2004, making current performance assessment impossible.
- Lack of specific details on the scope of IT services provided hinders a thorough value analysis.
- No information on the number of bidders limits the assessment of the competitive landscape's effectiveness.
Positive Signals
- Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a robust bidding process.
- Firm Fixed Price contract type indicates a focus on cost control and risk transfer to the contractor.
- Long contract duration suggests a stable, ongoing need for the services provided.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the Information Technology (IT) services sector, a broad category encompassing a wide range of support, development, and maintenance activities for computer systems and networks. Federal IT spending is a significant portion of the overall federal budget, with agencies like NASA relying heavily on IT for research, operations, and data management. Contracts of this nature are common across government, supporting everything from basic help desk functions to complex system integration and cybersecurity.
Small Business Impact
The data indicates that this contract was not awarded as a small business set-aside, nor does it explicitly mention subcontracting goals for small businesses. This suggests that the primary focus was on obtaining the best value through full and open competition, rather than specifically targeting small business participation. Consequently, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem for this particular contract may be limited, unless OAO Corporation voluntarily engaged small businesses as subcontractors.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight mechanisms for this contract would have been managed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) contracting officers and program managers. As a completed contract from the early 2000s, detailed oversight reports or specific inspector general investigations related to this award are unlikely to be readily available. Transparency would have been governed by federal procurement regulations at the time, requiring documentation of the procurement process and award decision.
Related Government Programs
- NASA IT Support Services
- Federal Information Technology Contracts
- OAO Corporation Federal Contracts
- Firm Fixed Price IT Services
- Full and Open Competition IT Awards
Risk Flags
- Completed contract: Performance and value cannot be assessed with current data.
- Lack of detailed scope: Difficulty in precise value benchmarking.
- No bidder count: Limits assessment of competition intensity.
Tags
it-services, nasa, oao-corporation, firm-fixed-price, full-and-open-competition, information-technology, federal-contract, texas, completed-contract, large-contract
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $21.9 million to OAO CORPORATION. See the official description on USAspending.
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is OAO CORPORATION.
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 $21.9 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 1999-10-15. End: 2004-08-31.
What was the specific nature of the IT services provided under this contract?
The provided data does not specify the exact nature of the IT services rendered by OAO Corporation to NASA. Typically, such contracts could encompass a wide array of services including, but not limited to, software development and maintenance, network administration, hardware support, help desk services, cybersecurity, and IT infrastructure management. Without further details, it's presumed these services were critical to supporting NASA's operational and research needs during the contract period (1999-2004).
How does the $21.9 million contract value compare to similar IT contracts awarded by NASA during that period?
Benchmarking the $21.9 million contract value requires access to historical federal procurement databases and analysis of comparable IT service contracts awarded by NASA between 1999 and 2004. Factors such as contract duration, scope of services, and specific technologies involved would need to be considered. Given the contract's duration of approximately 4.8 years (1782 days), the average annual value was roughly $4.56 million. This figure would need to be compared against the average annual value of similar IT support contracts to determine if it represented a competitive or outlier price point for the services rendered.
What were the potential risks associated with a Firm Fixed Price contract of this magnitude and duration?
A Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract, while aiming to control costs, carries inherent risks. For the government, the primary risk is that the contractor may cut corners on quality or service delivery to maximize profit if the initial price was set too low or if unforeseen issues arise. For the contractor, the risk lies in underestimating the costs, leading to potential financial losses, especially over a long duration like this contract (nearly 5 years). Effective risk mitigation would have depended on a well-defined scope of work, clear performance standards, and robust government oversight to ensure contract compliance and quality.
What does the 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION' designation imply about the procurement process and potential outcomes?
The 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION' designation signifies that NASA followed a procurement process designed to encourage participation from all responsible sources. This means that the solicitation was widely advertised, and any qualified company could submit a bid. Such a process is generally favored as it promotes competition, which theoretically leads to better pricing, higher quality services, and innovative solutions as contractors vie for the award. It suggests that NASA sought to leverage market dynamics to achieve the best value for the government.
Given the contract's completion date in 2004, what insights can be gleaned about NASA's IT spending patterns during that era?
This contract, awarded in 1999 and completed in 2004, provides a snapshot of NASA's IT spending during a period of significant technological advancement and increasing reliance on digital infrastructure. The $21.9 million expenditure on IT services from a single contractor indicates a substantial investment in maintaining and potentially upgrading its technological capabilities. It reflects a common government practice of outsourcing IT functions to specialized contractors to leverage expertise and manage costs, aligning with broader federal trends in IT procurement during the late 1990s and early 2000s.
What is the significance of the contract being awarded to OAO Corporation, and what is their general track record?
OAO Corporation was a government contractor providing IT services. The significance of this specific contract lies in its duration and value, suggesting a substantial role in supporting NASA's IT needs during that period. Without access to detailed performance reviews or historical contract databases specific to OAO Corporation's work with NASA on this particular award, it's difficult to provide a nuanced assessment of their track record solely based on this data. Generally, winning a competitive, multi-year contract with a major agency like NASA implies a certain level of capability and past performance that met the agency's requirements at the time of award.
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Offers Received: 2
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)
Contractor Details
Parent Company: Lockheed Martin Corp (UEI: 834951691)
Address: 7500 GREENWAY CENTER DR #, GREENBELT, MD, 04
Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $353,212,772
Exercised Options: $337,381,352
Current Obligation: $21,944,285
Timeline
Start Date: 1999-10-15
Current End Date: 2004-08-31
Potential End Date: 2004-08-31 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2014-10-29
More Contracts from OAO Corporation
- 200101!000092!5700!CA03 !21 Cons/Lgc !F0560400C9004 !a!n!*!y!p00002 !20001001!20010331!149299679!149299679!074830209!n!oao Corporation !2020 N Academy Blvd !colorado Sprin !co!80909!14142!041!08!cheyenne MTN Complex!el Paso !colorado !+000001966495!n!n!000000000000!m127!operation/Electronic & Communication Facilities !S1 !services !3000!NOT Discernable or Classified !513390!*!*!3! ! !C!*!*!*!B!*!*!A! !A !N!R!2!004!B! !C!N!Z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !c!c!a!a!000!a!c!n! ! ! !Y! ! !0001! — $92.9M (Department of Defense)
- Federal Contract — $86.1M (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
- 4200091243 SAP Msfc Odin Desktop & Network — $47.1M (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
- Federal Contract — $22.9M (Department of Health and Human Services)
- ADP Systems Development Services — $22.0M (Department of Health and Human Services)
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 →