NASA's $28.6M guidance, navigation, and control systems engineering contract awarded to Draper Laboratory
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $28,602,096 ($28.6M)
Contractor: THE Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, Inc.
Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Start Date: 2001-03-30
End Date: 2006-01-31
Contract Duration: 1,768 days
Daily Burn Rate: $16.2K/day
Competition Type: NOT COMPETED
Number of Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE
Sector: R&D
Official Description: GUIDANCE,NAVIGATION & CONTROL SYSTEMS ENGINEERING ANALYSIS
Place of Performance
Location: CAMBRIDGE, MIDDLESEX County, MASSACHUSETTS, 02139
Plain-Language Summary
National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $28.6 million to THE CHARLES STARK DRAPER LABORATORY, INC. for work described as: GUIDANCE,NAVIGATION & CONTROL SYSTEMS ENGINEERING ANALYSIS Key points: 1. Contract awarded on a cost-plus-fixed-fee basis, allowing for flexibility but requiring close oversight of costs. 2. The contract was not competed, raising questions about potential price discovery and value for money. 3. The duration of the contract (1768 days) suggests a long-term need for these specialized engineering services. 4. The award was made under the GSA Federal Supply Schedule, which can streamline procurement but may limit competition. 5. The specific services relate to critical guidance, navigation, and control systems, essential for aerospace missions.
Value Assessment
Rating: fair
Benchmarking the value of this specific contract is challenging without detailed cost breakdowns and comparisons to similar sole-source procurements for highly specialized engineering services. The cost-plus-fixed-fee structure means actual costs could vary, and the final value depends on efficient execution by the contractor. Given the lack of competition, it's difficult to definitively assess if the pricing represents optimal value for taxpayers.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: sole-source
This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning it was not open to competitive bidding. This typically occurs when a specific contractor possesses unique capabilities or when urgency dictates a direct award. The lack of competition limits the government's ability to leverage market forces to achieve the best possible price and terms.
Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards can result in higher costs for taxpayers as there is no competitive pressure to drive down prices. It also bypasses opportunities to discover innovative solutions or cost efficiencies that might emerge from a competitive process.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiary is NASA, which receives critical engineering support for its space missions. Services delivered include analysis and engineering for guidance, navigation, and control systems, vital for spacecraft. The geographic impact is primarily within the aerospace sector, with potential benefits extending to national space exploration capabilities. Workforce implications include the employment of highly skilled engineers and technical specialists at The Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, Inc.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Lack of competition may lead to suboptimal pricing.
- Cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts require diligent oversight to manage cost overruns.
- Sole-source awards can limit access to a broader range of innovative solutions.
Positive Signals
- Award to a specialized contractor with likely deep expertise in critical aerospace systems.
- Contract duration suggests a stable, long-term need for these essential services.
- Use of GSA Schedule can indicate a streamlined procurement process for specialized needs.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the Engineering Services sector, specifically supporting the aerospace industry's need for advanced guidance, navigation, and control (GNC) systems. The market for such specialized engineering expertise is often concentrated among a few highly capable firms. Comparable spending benchmarks are difficult to establish due to the unique nature of GNC systems and the sole-source award.
Small Business Impact
There is no indication that this contract included small business set-asides. As a sole-source award to a large, established contractor, it is unlikely to have direct subcontracting implications for small businesses unless The Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, Inc. voluntarily engages them for specific components or services.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under NASA's contracting officers and program managers. Given the cost-plus-fixed-fee structure, rigorous monitoring of expenditures and performance against milestones would be crucial. Transparency is limited by the sole-source nature and the proprietary aspects of GNC engineering. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.
Related Government Programs
- NASA Space Exploration Programs
- Aerospace Engineering Services
- Guidance, Navigation, and Control Systems Development
- Federal Supply Schedule Contracts
Risk Flags
- Sole-source award bypasses competitive pricing.
- Cost-plus-fixed-fee requires diligent cost oversight.
- Long contract duration increases risk of obsolescence or cost overruns.
Tags
nasa, engineering-services, guidance-navigation-control, sole-source, cost-plus-fixed-fee, research-and-development, aerospace, gsa-schedule, draper-laboratory, massachusetts
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $28.6 million to THE CHARLES STARK DRAPER LABORATORY, INC.. GUIDANCE,NAVIGATION & CONTROL SYSTEMS ENGINEERING ANALYSIS
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is THE CHARLES STARK DRAPER LABORATORY, 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 $28.6 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2001-03-30. End: 2006-01-31.
What is the specific expertise of The Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, Inc. in guidance, navigation, and control systems?
The Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, Inc. (Draper) is a renowned research and development organization with a long history of expertise in GNC systems. They have been instrumental in developing GNC technologies for numerous space missions, including ballistic missile guidance, spacecraft navigation, and autonomous systems. Their work often involves complex algorithms, sensor integration, and real-time control systems, making them a critical partner for agencies like NASA that require highly specialized and reliable GNC solutions for mission success. Their deep institutional knowledge and established track record in this niche field likely contributed to the sole-source award.
How does the cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) contract type impact the overall cost and risk for NASA?
A Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) contract type means that NASA reimburses the contractor for all allowable costs incurred, plus a predetermined fixed fee representing profit. This structure is often used when the scope of work is not precisely defined or when there is significant uncertainty in the cost of performance, as is common in advanced engineering and R&D. For NASA, this shifts some of the cost risk to the government, as the final price is not fixed upfront. However, it allows for flexibility to adapt to evolving technical requirements. Effective oversight is paramount to ensure costs remain reasonable and that the contractor exercises due diligence in managing expenses to achieve the project's objectives within the anticipated cost range.
What are the implications of a sole-source award for taxpayer value in this context?
Sole-source awards, by definition, bypass the competitive bidding process. This means that NASA did not solicit proposals from multiple vendors to compare technical approaches and pricing. While Draper may possess unique capabilities essential for this specific GNC engineering work, the absence of competition removes the downward price pressure that typically arises from market forces. Consequently, taxpayers may not be receiving the most cost-effective solution available. The justification for a sole-source award usually rests on the uniqueness of the contractor's capabilities or urgent needs, but it necessitates robust justification and oversight to ensure fair value is still obtained.
What is the historical spending pattern for similar GNC engineering services by NASA?
Analyzing historical spending patterns for similar GNC engineering services by NASA is complex due to the specialized nature of the work and the variety of contract types and award methods. NASA frequently engages in sole-source or limited-competition contracts for highly specialized R&D and engineering services where specific expertise is paramount, such as GNC systems. While specific dollar amounts for comparable contracts are not readily available without deeper database analysis, it is common for NASA to allocate significant funding to GNC development and support, reflecting the critical role these systems play in mission success across its diverse portfolio of space exploration and scientific endeavors.
What are the potential risks associated with the long duration of this contract?
The contract's duration of 1768 days (approximately 4.8 years) presents several potential risks. Firstly, technological advancements in GNC systems could outpace the contract's scope, potentially rendering some aspects obsolete or requiring costly modifications. Secondly, long-term cost escalation due to inflation or unforeseen project complexities could exceed initial estimates, even with a fixed fee component. Thirdly, maintaining consistent oversight and program management continuity over such an extended period can be challenging for the agency. Finally, the contractor's performance could degrade over time if not continuously monitored and incentivized.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services › Engineering Services
Product/Service Code: SPECIAL STUDIES/ANALYSIS, NOT R&D › SPECIAL STUDIES - NOT R and D
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED
Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE
Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Address: 555 TECHNOLOGY SQ, CAMBRIDGE, MA, 90
Business Categories: Category Business, Nonprofit Organization, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $30,854,920
Exercised Options: $30,854,920
Current Obligation: $28,602,096
Timeline
Start Date: 2001-03-30
Current End Date: 2006-01-31
Potential End Date: 2006-01-31 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2012-10-31
More Contracts from THE Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, Inc.
- TES Fy24--See Note a — $991.0M (Department of Defense)
- Guidance TES FY22 EO14042 — $679.0M (Department of Defense)
- Engineering Services — $584.2M (Department of Defense)
- Engineering Services — $533.2M (Department of Defense)
- UK Funding — $489.3M (Department of Defense)
View all THE Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, Inc. federal contracts →
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 →