NASA's $63.3M Utah State University contract for measuring devices spanned 12 years, ending in 2012
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $63,331,409 ($63.3M)
Contractor: Utah State University
Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Start Date: 2000-06-19
End Date: 2012-08-16
Contract Duration: 4,441 days
Daily Burn Rate: $14.3K/day
Competition Type: NOT COMPETED
Number of Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE
Sector: Other
Official Description: CONTRACT CHANGED FROM COST/FEE TYPE TO FIXED PRICE TYPE BY MOD 34
Place of Performance
Location: LOGAN, CACHE County, UTAH, 84341
State: Utah Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $63.3 million to UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY for work described as: CONTRACT CHANGED FROM COST/FEE TYPE TO FIXED PRICE TYPE BY MOD 34 Key points: 1. Contract value of $63.3 million over its lifecycle suggests a significant investment in specialized measuring and controlling devices. 2. The contract's duration of over 12 years indicates a long-term need for these devices, potentially for ongoing research or operational support. 3. Ending in 2012, the contract's performance context is historical, requiring analysis against contemporary market conditions and technological standards. 4. The 'Other Measuring and Controlling Device Manufacturing' sector is broad, making direct comparisons challenging without specific device details. 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 classification as 'NOT COMPETED' raises questions about the procurement process and potential missed opportunities for competitive pricing.
Value Assessment
Rating: questionable
Benchmarking the value of this $63.3 million contract is difficult without knowing the specific measuring and controlling devices procured. The contract's long duration (over 12 years) and its 'NOT COMPETED' status suggest potential inefficiencies or a lack of market alternatives at the time. Without comparative data on similar NASA procurements for comparable devices, assessing true value-for-money is challenging. The fixed-price nature, however, should have provided some cost certainty for the agency.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: sole-source
This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning it was not competed. This typically occurs when only one responsible source is available or when there is a compelling justification for not seeking competition. The lack of competition means NASA did not benefit from a bidding process that could have driven down prices or spurred innovation from multiple vendors.
Taxpayer Impact: For taxpayers, a sole-source award means there was no opportunity to leverage market competition to secure the best possible price for the required devices, potentially leading to higher costs.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiary of this contract was likely NASA, which received specialized measuring and controlling devices for its programs. The services delivered involved the manufacturing and potentially the support of these critical devices. The geographic impact is centered in Utah, where Utah State University is located, suggesting a contribution to the local economy and research ecosystem. Workforce implications would include employment opportunities at Utah State University and any subcontractors involved in fulfilling the contract.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Lack of competition may have led to higher costs for taxpayers.
- Contract duration of over 12 years could indicate potential for cost overruns or scope creep if not managed tightly.
- The 'Other Measuring and Controlling Device Manufacturing' category is very broad, making it hard to assess if the best technology was acquired.
- Ending in 2012, the technology and pricing may be outdated, making current value assessment difficult.
Positive Signals
- The contract was awarded to an educational institution (Utah State University), potentially fostering research and development.
- The firm fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty for the agency once awarded.
- The long duration suggests a stable, ongoing need that the contractor was able to meet over an extended period.
Sector Analysis
The 'Other Measuring and Controlling Device Manufacturing' sector encompasses a wide array of products used across various industries, including aerospace, defense, and scientific research. NASA's spending in this area is crucial for its mission success, requiring highly specialized and reliable equipment. Benchmarking this $63.3 million contract is challenging due to its broad classification and historical nature. However, it represents a significant investment in a niche manufacturing capability, likely supporting advanced scientific or engineering applications.
Small Business Impact
The contract details indicate that small business participation was not a specific requirement or focus, as the 'sb' field is false and there's no mention of set-asides. This suggests that the procurement likely did not include provisions to encourage or mandate subcontracting opportunities for small businesses. Consequently, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem from this specific contract is likely minimal.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight mechanisms for this contract would have been managed by NASA's contracting officers and program managers. As a definitive contract awarded in 2000 and ending in 2012, it predates some of the more recent transparency initiatives. Accountability would be tied to performance milestones and adherence to the firm fixed-price terms. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected during the contract's performance period.
Related Government Programs
- NASA Research and Development Contracts
- Aerospace Manufacturing Support
- Scientific Instrumentation Procurement
- University Research Partnerships
Risk Flags
- Sole-source award
- Long contract duration
- Lack of competition
- Historical data (ended 2012)
Tags
nasa, definitive-contract, firm-fixed-price, not-competed, sole-source, measuring-and-controlling-devices, manufacturing, utah, university, research-and-development, historical-contract, large-contract
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $63.3 million to UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY. CONTRACT CHANGED FROM COST/FEE TYPE TO FIXED PRICE TYPE BY MOD 34
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY.
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 $63.3 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2000-06-19. End: 2012-08-16.
What specific types of measuring and controlling devices were procured under this contract?
The provided data classifies the contract under 'Other Measuring and Controlling Device Manufacturing' (NAICS code 334519) but does not specify the exact devices. Given the contractor is Utah State University and the agency is NASA, it is plausible these devices were related to aerospace research, sensor technology, environmental monitoring, or specialized scientific instrumentation. Without further details on the Statement of Work or specific product descriptions, pinpointing the exact nature of the devices remains speculative. This lack of specificity hinders a precise understanding of the contract's technical scope and its alignment with NASA's evolving technological needs.
How does the $63.3 million total value compare to similar NASA contracts for measuring devices during that period?
Comparing the $63.3 million total value of this contract, which spanned from 2000 to 2012, to similar NASA contracts is challenging without more specific information on the types of devices procured. NASA procures a vast range of measuring and controlling devices, from basic sensors to highly complex scientific instruments. If these were standard components, $63.3 million over 12 years might seem high. However, if they were highly specialized, custom-developed instruments for unique research missions, the cost could be justified. Historical spending data from NASA's procurement records for similar NAICS codes (334519) during that era would be needed for a meaningful benchmark.
What were the primary risks associated with this long-term, sole-source contract?
The primary risks associated with this long-term (over 12 years) and sole-source contract include potential cost overruns if the fixed-price was not adequately estimated, technological obsolescence if the devices became outdated during the contract period, and a lack of innovation due to the absence of competitive pressure. Furthermore, sole-source awards inherently carry the risk of the government paying a premium compared to a competitively bid contract. Performance risk also exists, where the contractor might not deliver the required quality or quantity, and the government has limited alternatives due to the non-competitive nature.
What was the justification for awarding this contract on a sole-source basis?
The provided data indicates the contract was 'NOT COMPETED,' implying a sole-source award. Typical justifications for sole-source contracts include that only one responsible source exists capable of meeting the agency's needs, or that there's a compelling urgency, or that the acquisition is for a unique research and development capability residing with a specific entity. Given the contractor is Utah State University, the justification might have been related to unique research expertise, proprietary technology, or a specific ongoing research project where switching contractors would be impractical or detrimental to NASA's objectives.
How did the firm fixed-price contract type impact cost management for NASA?
A Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract type generally aims to provide NASA with cost certainty. Under an FFP contract, the price is set and not subject to adjustment based on the contractor's cost experience. This shifts the cost risk from the government to the contractor. If Utah State University completed the work for less than the agreed-upon price, they would retain the profit. Conversely, if costs exceeded the agreed price, the contractor would absorb the loss. This structure incentivizes the contractor to control costs efficiently, but it also means NASA pays the agreed price regardless of the contractor's actual expenditures.
What is the historical spending pattern for NASA in the 'Other Measuring and Controlling Device Manufacturing' sector?
Historical spending patterns for NASA in the 'Other Measuring and Controlling Device Manufacturing' sector (NAICS 334519) are not detailed in the provided data. However, NASA consistently invests in advanced technologies and instrumentation to support its diverse missions, which include space exploration, aeronautics research, and Earth science. Spending in this sector would likely fluctuate based on specific program requirements, research initiatives, and technological advancements. This $63.3 million contract represents a significant, long-term investment within this category, suggesting a sustained need for specialized devices over more than a decade.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Manufacturing › Navigational, Measuring, Electromedical, and Control Instruments Manufacturing › Other Measuring and Controlling Device Manufacturing
Product/Service Code: RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT › Space R&D Services
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED
Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)
Contractor Details
Address: OLD MAIN HILL UMC 2400, LOGAN, UT, 84322
Business Categories: Category Business, Educational Institution, Government, Higher Education, Not Designated a Small Business, U.S. Regional/State Government
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $105,676,762
Exercised Options: $63,352,226
Current Obligation: $63,331,409
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED
Timeline
Start Date: 2000-06-19
Current End Date: 2012-08-16
Potential End Date: 2012-08-16 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2018-08-20
More Contracts from Utah State University
- Biomedical (basic) — $15.8M (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 →