NASA's $175M contract with Zin Technologies Inc. for microgravity research and development shows long-term engagement

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $174,750,407 ($174.8M)

Contractor: ZIN Technologies, Inc.

Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Start Date: 1999-11-01

End Date: 2009-05-31

Contract Duration: 3,499 days

Daily Burn Rate: $49.9K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIXED PRICE INCENTIVE

Sector: R&D

Official Description: MICROGRAVITY, RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND

Place of Performance

Location: CLEVELAND, CUYAHOGA County, OHIO, 44143, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

State: Ohio Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $174.8 million to ZIN TECHNOLOGIES, INC. for work described as: MICROGRAVITY, RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND Key points: 1. The contract's duration suggests a sustained need for the contractor's specialized services in microgravity research. 2. Fixed-price incentive contracts aim to balance cost control with performance incentives for the contractor. 3. The award was made under full and open competition, indicating a broad search for qualified vendors. 4. The contract's value, while substantial, needs to be benchmarked against similar long-term R&D efforts. 5. The contractor's performance over a decade is a key indicator of reliability and expertise. 6. The absence of small business set-asides may limit opportunities for smaller firms in this specialized sector.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

This contract, awarded in 1999 and ending in 2009, represents a significant investment in microgravity research and development. While specific per-unit cost data is not available, the fixed-price incentive structure suggests an effort to manage costs while encouraging performance. Benchmarking this against other long-term R&D contracts within NASA or similar agencies would provide further context on its value for money. The extended duration implies consistent delivery of valuable services.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, meaning that all responsible sources were permitted to submit a bid. This approach typically fosters a competitive environment, potentially leading to better pricing and innovation. The fact that it was competed broadly suggests that NASA sought the best available capabilities for its microgravity research needs.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by ensuring that the government receives competitive pricing and a wide range of solutions, maximizing the value of federal dollars.

Public Impact

Benefits researchers and scientists by providing essential platforms and support for microgravity experiments. Enables advancements in fields such as materials science, biology, and physics through space-based research. Supports the U.S. space program's objectives for scientific discovery and technological innovation. Contributes to the development of technologies and knowledge applicable to both space exploration and terrestrial applications. The contract's execution likely involved a specialized workforce, including engineers, scientists, and technicians.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Positive Signals

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the aerospace and research and development sector, specifically focusing on microgravity applications. This is a highly specialized area requiring unique expertise and facilities. Spending in this sector is often characterized by long-term investments, significant R&D costs, and a limited number of highly qualified contractors. Comparable spending might include other NASA research contracts, grants for space science, or R&D initiatives within defense agencies.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates this contract was not set aside for small businesses, nor does it explicitly mention subcontracting goals for small businesses. This suggests that the primary award went to a large business, and opportunities for small businesses would likely be through subcontracting if initiated by the prime contractor. Further investigation into subcontracting plans would be needed to assess the impact on the small business ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would have been managed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Mechanisms likely included regular progress reviews, performance monitoring against contract milestones, and financial audits. The fixed-price incentive structure itself provides a form of oversight by linking contractor payment to performance outcomes. Transparency would depend on NASA's public reporting practices regarding contract performance and expenditures.

Related Government Programs

Risk Flags

Tags

nasa, microgravity-research, research-and-development, fixed-price-incentive, full-and-open-competition, large-business, ohio, aerospace, science, long-term-contract

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $174.8 million to ZIN TECHNOLOGIES, INC.. MICROGRAVITY, RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ZIN TECHNOLOGIES, 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 $174.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 1999-11-01. End: 2009-05-31.

What was Zin Technologies, Inc.'s track record prior to and during this contract?

Information on Zin Technologies, Inc.'s specific track record prior to this NASA contract is not detailed in the provided data. However, being awarded a $175 million, 10-year contract by NASA under full and open competition suggests a significant level of capability and past performance that met NASA's stringent requirements. During the contract's tenure (1999-2009), the successful completion of its objectives would be the primary indicator of their performance. NASA's contract management systems would track adherence to schedules, budgets, and technical specifications. Without access to NASA's internal performance evaluations or contractor past performance databases, a detailed assessment of their specific successes or challenges during this period remains limited. Generally, contractors who secure and maintain such long-term, high-value government contracts demonstrate a consistent ability to meet federal standards.

How does the $175 million value compare to similar microgravity research contracts?

Benchmarking the $175 million value requires comparing it to similar long-term research and development contracts within the microgravity domain. Contracts for space station research support, payload development, or specialized research facilities can vary widely in cost depending on scope, duration, and technological complexity. Given this contract spanned nearly a decade (1999-2009), the annual average expenditure was approximately $17.5 million. This figure needs to be contextualized against the overall NASA budget for R&D and space operations during that era. For instance, major research grants or contracts supporting the International Space Station (ISS) or specific scientific missions could range from tens to hundreds of millions of dollars over their lifecycles. Without specific comparable contract data from the same period, it's challenging to definitively state if $175 million represents a high, low, or average investment for a decade-long microgravity R&D effort.

What were the key risks associated with this fixed-price incentive contract?

Fixed-price incentive (FPI) contracts, like this one, carry inherent risks for both the government and the contractor. For the government, a primary risk is that the contractor might cut corners on quality or performance to maximize profit if the incentive targets are not well-defined or if oversight is insufficient. There's also the risk of cost growth if the target cost is too high or if unforeseen technical challenges arise that necessitate contract modifications. For the contractor, the risk lies in exceeding the target cost, which would reduce their profit margin, or failing to meet performance incentives, also impacting profitability. Disputes over performance metrics, cost accounting, and the achievement of incentive goals are common risks in FPI contracts. Effective risk mitigation relies on clear contract language, robust government oversight, and realistic cost and performance targets.

How effective was this contract in achieving its microgravity research and development goals?

Assessing the effectiveness of this contract in achieving its microgravity research and development goals requires access to NASA's program performance reports, technical reviews, and the ultimate scientific or technological outcomes derived from the research supported. The contract's long duration (1999-2009) and substantial value suggest a significant commitment to advancing knowledge in microgravity. Success would be measured by the successful execution of research experiments, the development of new technologies or methodologies applicable to space or terrestrial science, and contributions to NASA's broader mission objectives. Without specific documentation on the research outputs, publications, patents, or technological advancements directly attributable to this contract, a definitive statement on its effectiveness cannot be made. However, the renewal or continuation of such long-term engagements often implies a degree of success in meeting initial objectives.

What were historical spending patterns for microgravity research at NASA around this contract's period?

Historical spending patterns for microgravity research at NASA during the late 1990s and 2000s were influenced by the development and operation of the International Space Station (ISS) and prior programs like the Space Shuttle's microgravity research flights. NASA allocated significant portions of its budget towards research and development, with a substantial focus on understanding the effects of microgravity on physical and biological systems. Funding supported payload development, experiment design, astronaut training for research tasks, and data analysis. Spending could fluctuate based on mission priorities, budget allocations, and the availability of research platforms. Contracts like the one awarded to Zin Technologies, Inc. represent a component of this broader spending strategy, often involving long-term commitments for specialized support services essential for sustained research efforts in orbit or on the ground.

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIXED PRICE INCENTIVE (L)

Contractor Details

Address: 2001 AEROSPACE PKWY, CLEVELAND, OH, 44142

Business Categories: Black American Owned Business, Category Business, Minority Owned Business, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $435,699,067

Exercised Options: $278,149,067

Current Obligation: $174,750,407

Timeline

Start Date: 1999-11-01

Current End Date: 2009-05-31

Potential End Date: 2009-05-31 00:00:00

Last Modified: 2015-08-11

More Contracts from ZIN Technologies, Inc.

View all ZIN Technologies, Inc. federal contracts →

Other National Aeronautics and Space Administration Contracts

View all National Aeronautics and Space Administration contracts →

Explore Related Government Spending