PAE Applied Technologies LLC's $316M NASA contract for facilities support services ran for 5 years
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $316,250,457 ($316.3M)
Contractor: PAE Applied Technologies LLC
Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Start Date: 2002-01-31
End Date: 2008-02-29
Contract Duration: 2,220 days
Daily Burn Rate: $142.5K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Number of Offers Received: 7
Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE
Sector: Other
Official Description: COSS/CENTER OPERATIONS SUPPORT SERVICESS
Place of Performance
Location: HOUSTON, HARRIS County, TEXAS, 77058
State: Texas Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $316.3 million to PAE APPLIED TECHNOLOGIES LLC for work described as: COSS/CENTER OPERATIONS SUPPORT SERVICESS Key points: 1. The contract's cost-plus-award-fee structure incentivized performance but could lead to higher costs if not managed tightly. 2. With 7 bidders, the competition level suggests a healthy market for these services, potentially driving competitive pricing. 3. The contract's duration of 2220 days (over 6 years) indicates a significant, long-term need for these support services. 4. Facilities support services are critical for maintaining operational readiness and infrastructure for agencies like NASA. 5. The contract was awarded as a definitive contract, suggesting a clear scope of work and established terms. 6. The absence of small business set-aside indicates the primary focus was on securing the best overall value from the market.
Value Assessment
Rating: fair
Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging without specific performance metrics and detailed cost breakdowns. The cost-plus-award-fee (CPAFF) structure allows for flexibility but requires robust oversight to ensure costs remain reasonable and that award fees are tied to demonstrable value. Comparing it to similar facilities support contracts would require access to detailed pricing data and performance outcomes from those contracts. The raw dollar amount of $316M over 5 years suggests a substantial investment in maintaining NASA's facilities.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: full-and-open
The contract was awarded under full and open competition, with seven bidders vying for the work. This level of competition is generally positive, as it suggests a robust market for facilities support services and provides NASA with a range of options. A higher number of bidders typically leads to more competitive pricing and a greater likelihood of selecting a contractor that offers the best combination of technical capability and cost-effectiveness.
Taxpayer Impact: For taxpayers, full and open competition with multiple bidders increases the probability that NASA secured these essential services at a fair market price, minimizing potential overspending.
Public Impact
NASA's facilities and operational infrastructure benefit from consistent and reliable support services. The contract supports the ongoing missions and research activities conducted by NASA by ensuring functional workspaces and equipment. The geographic impact is primarily centered in Texas (ST: TX, SN: TEXAS), where the facilities requiring support are located. The contract likely supports a workforce involved in facility maintenance, operations, and management, contributing to local employment in Texas.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- The cost-plus-award-fee structure, while incentivizing performance, carries a risk of cost overruns if not meticulously managed and if award criteria are not sufficiently stringent.
- The long duration of the contract (over 6 years) could lead to potential scope creep or a decrease in contractor responsiveness if not actively managed.
- Without specific performance data, it's difficult to assess if the award fees truly reflect exceptional value or were easily attainable.
Positive Signals
- The full and open competition with seven bidders suggests a competitive environment that likely drove a reasonable price.
- The definitive contract award type implies a well-defined scope, reducing ambiguity and potential disputes.
- The contract's focus on facilities support services is essential for NASA's core operations, indicating a strategic allocation of resources.
Sector Analysis
Facilities Support Services, categorized under NAICS code 561210, represent a significant segment of the government contracting market. This sector encompasses a wide range of services necessary for the operation and maintenance of buildings and grounds. Government spending in this area is crucial for ensuring the functionality and safety of federal installations. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other large-scale facilities management contracts awarded by agencies like the Department of Defense or the General Services Administration, looking at per-square-foot costs or contract values relative to facility size and complexity.
Small Business Impact
The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (SS: false, SB: false). This suggests that the requirement was likely too large in scope or complexity for small business participation as the prime contractor, or that the competition was opened broadly to ensure the widest possible pool of qualified bidders. While there's no direct indication of subcontracting plans for small businesses, large prime contracts often include provisions for small business subcontracting to meet federal goals. The absence of a set-aside means the primary focus was on securing the best value from the entire market, potentially limiting direct opportunities for small businesses as prime contractors on this specific award.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would have been primarily managed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). As a definitive contract awarded under full and open competition, it would be subject to standard federal procurement regulations and oversight mechanisms. NASA's contracting officers and program managers would be responsible for monitoring performance, ensuring compliance with contract terms, and approving payments, including any award fees. The cost-plus-award-fee structure necessitates particularly diligent oversight to ensure that award fees are justified by performance and that costs are reasonable. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply for any investigations into fraud, waste, or abuse related to the contract.
Related Government Programs
- NASA Operations Support
- Federal Facilities Maintenance Contracts
- Cost-Plus-Award-Fee Contracts
- Large Scale Service Contracts
- Aerospace Support Services
Risk Flags
- Potential for cost overruns due to CPAFF structure if not managed tightly.
- Risk of performance degradation over the long contract duration.
- Need for robust government oversight to ensure value for money.
- Lack of specific performance metrics makes independent value assessment difficult.
Tags
facilities-support-services, nasa, pae-applied-technologies-llc, definitive-contract, full-and-open-competition, cost-plus-award-fee, texas, large-contract, facilities-management, aerospace-support
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $316.3 million to PAE APPLIED TECHNOLOGIES LLC. COSS/CENTER OPERATIONS SUPPORT SERVICESS
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is PAE APPLIED TECHNOLOGIES LLC.
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 $316.3 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2002-01-31. End: 2008-02-29.
What was the specific nature of the facilities support services provided under this contract?
While the NAICS code 561210 points to 'Facilities Support Services,' the specific services under this PAE Applied Technologies LLC contract for NASA would typically encompass a broad range of activities essential for maintaining operational readiness and infrastructure. This often includes, but is not limited to, routine and preventive maintenance of buildings and grounds, custodial services, pest control, refuse collection, security services, mail services, and potentially specialized support for laboratory or mission-critical equipment. Given NASA's unique operational needs, these services might also extend to supporting specialized environments, ensuring safety compliance, and managing complex utility systems critical for research and space exploration activities. The exact scope would be detailed in the contract's Statement of Work (SOW).
How did the cost-plus-award-fee (CPAFF) structure influence contractor performance and cost management?
The Cost-Plus-Award-Fee (CPAFF) structure is designed to incentivize contractor performance by allowing the contractor to recover allowable costs plus a fee that is composed of a fixed base amount and an award amount. The award amount is contingent upon the contractor meeting or exceeding specific performance objectives defined in the contract. For PAE Applied Technologies LLC, this meant that their ability to earn the maximum potential fee was directly tied to NASA's assessment of their performance in delivering facilities support services. This structure encourages contractors to go beyond minimum requirements to achieve higher performance levels. However, it also places a significant burden on the government to establish clear, measurable, and objective performance criteria and to conduct rigorous evaluations to ensure that award fees are earned legitimately and do not simply inflate costs. Effective oversight is crucial to prevent potential 'gaming' of the system or unnecessary cost escalation.
What does the number of bidders (7) suggest about the market for NASA's facilities support services?
The presence of seven bidders for this NASA facilities support services contract indicates a competitive and relatively mature market for such services. A higher number of bidders generally suggests that multiple companies possess the capability, resources, and interest to undertake large-scale government contracts. This level of competition is favorable for the government, as it typically leads to better price discovery, a wider range of technical solutions, and increased pressure on contractors to offer competitive terms and demonstrate strong performance. For NASA, having seven potential providers meant they could solicit a variety of proposals and select the one that best balanced cost, technical merit, and past performance, ultimately aiming for the best value for the taxpayer.
What are the potential risks associated with a contract of this duration (2220 days)?
A contract spanning 2220 days (approximately 6 years) carries several potential risks. Firstly, there's the risk of 'contractor complacency' or reduced innovation over time if performance metrics are not consistently updated or rigorously enforced. Secondly, the long duration increases the likelihood of unforeseen changes in requirements, technology, or economic conditions that may not be adequately addressed by the original contract terms, potentially leading to costly modifications or disputes. Thirdly, it can be challenging for the government to maintain consistent oversight and engagement over such an extended period, potentially allowing performance issues to develop unnoticed. Finally, market conditions and pricing can fluctuate significantly over six years, meaning the initial price might become uncompetitive over time if not structured with appropriate economic price adjustment clauses.
How does the 'definitive contract' award type impact the contract's flexibility and risk?
A 'definitive contract' is a type of contract that is firm, fixed, and final, typically awarded when the scope of work, requirements, and price are clearly defined and known at the time of award. For this NASA contract, awarding it as a definitive contract suggests that NASA had a well-established understanding of the facilities support services needed and the associated costs. This award type generally offers more certainty and less risk of scope creep compared to, for example, cost-plus-incentive-fee contracts where targets might be adjusted. It implies that the contractor, PAE Applied Technologies LLC, committed to performing the specified services for a defined price (or cost ceiling with fee structure). While definitive contracts provide clarity, they can be less flexible in adapting to unforeseen changes, potentially requiring formal modifications if requirements evolve significantly.
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
Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE
Solicitation ID: 9BJ32T63024P
Offers Received: 7
Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE (R)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Parent Company: Computer Sciences Corporation (UEI: 009581091)
Address: 6500 WEST FREEWAY STE 600, FORT WORTH, TX, 76116
Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $345,828,176
Exercised Options: $345,828,176
Current Obligation: $316,250,457
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED
Timeline
Start Date: 2002-01-31
Current End Date: 2008-02-29
Potential End Date: 2008-02-29 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2020-02-26
More Contracts from PAE Applied Technologies LLC
- TAS::97 4930::TAS — $911.3M (Department of Defense)
- Facilities Support Services TAS::80 0130::TAS — $819.1M (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
- Other Target Cost - Aircraft Maintenance — $528.4M (Department of Defense)
- Federal Contract — $494.9M (Department of Defense)
- Awarding and Adding Funding to the Contract — $425.6M (Department of Defense)
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 →