NASA awards $69.8M AECOM contract for Ames Research Center architectural services over 6 years
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $69,768,618 ($69.8M)
Contractor: AECOM Technical Services, Inc.
Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Start Date: 2012-11-01
End Date: 2018-08-31
Contract Duration: 2,129 days
Daily Burn Rate: $32.8K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Number of Offers Received: 5
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE
Sector: Other
Official Description: IGF::OT::IGF ARCHITECT-ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE FACILITIES ENGINEERING BRANCH AT NASA AMES RESEARCH CENTER
Place of Performance
Location: MOFFETT FIELD, SANTA CLARA County, CALIFORNIA, 94035
Plain-Language Summary
National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $69.8 million to AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. for work described as: IGF::OT::IGF ARCHITECT-ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE FACILITIES ENGINEERING BRANCH AT NASA AMES RESEARCH CENTER Key points: 1. Contract value represents significant investment in facility engineering and architectural support. 2. Full and open competition suggests a robust bidding process. 3. Definitive contract type indicates a long-term relationship for ongoing needs. 4. Firm Fixed Price structure provides cost certainty for the agency. 5. Contract duration spans nearly six years, covering a substantial period of facility development. 6. Geographic focus on California highlights regional infrastructure investment.
Value Assessment
Rating: good
The contract value of $69.8 million over approximately six years for architectural services at NASA Ames Research Center appears reasonable given the scope and duration. Benchmarking against similar large-scale architectural support contracts for federal facilities suggests this falls within expected ranges. The firm fixed-price nature of the contract helps control costs, and the competition level (5 bidders) indicates potential for competitive pricing.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: full-and-open
This contract was awarded under full and open competition, with five bids received. This indicates that multiple firms were aware of and interested in the requirement, suggesting a healthy level of market engagement. The presence of multiple bidders generally leads to better price discovery and potentially more innovative solutions as contractors vie for the award.
Taxpayer Impact: A competitive bidding process for architectural services ensures that taxpayer dollars are used efficiently, as contractors are incentivized to offer their best pricing and value to win the contract.
Public Impact
Benefits NASA Ames Research Center by providing essential architectural and engineering expertise for facility upgrades and maintenance. Supports the development and upkeep of critical research and operational infrastructure. Geographic impact is concentrated in California, specifically at the Ames Research Center. Workforce implications include employment for architects, engineers, and support staff within AECOM and potentially its subcontractors.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Long contract duration could lead to scope creep if not managed effectively.
- Reliance on a single large contractor for critical architectural services might pose a risk if performance falters.
Positive Signals
- Firm Fixed Price contract provides budget predictability.
- Full and open competition suggests a strong market response and potential for value.
- Contractor AECOM has a significant track record in large-scale engineering and construction projects.
Sector Analysis
The architectural services sector supporting federal agencies is a significant market. This contract falls within the broader professional, scientific, and technical services industry. Federal spending on architectural and engineering services is driven by the need to maintain, upgrade, and construct government facilities, including research centers, military bases, and administrative buildings. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve looking at other large federal A-E contracts for similar facilities.
Small Business Impact
The data indicates this contract was not set aside for small businesses, and there is no explicit mention of small business subcontracting goals. This suggests that the primary award went to a large business. Further analysis would be needed to determine if AECOM has a subcontracting plan that includes opportunities for small businesses to participate in this project.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the NASA contracting officer and the technical point of contact at Ames Research Center. Performance reviews, progress reports, and adherence to contract terms would be key accountability measures. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases and public reporting, though specific project details might be less accessible.
Related Government Programs
- NASA Facilities Engineering Branch Contracts
- Architectural and Engineering Services for Federal Agencies
- NASA Ames Research Center Infrastructure Projects
Risk Flags
- Long-term contract duration
- Potential for scope creep
- Contractor performance dependency
Tags
nasa, architectural-services, facilities-engineering, definitive-contract, firm-fixed-price, full-and-open-competition, california, large-contract, professional-services, research-and-development-support
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $69.8 million to AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC.. IGF::OT::IGF ARCHITECT-ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE FACILITIES ENGINEERING BRANCH AT NASA AMES RESEARCH CENTER
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES, 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 $69.8 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2012-11-01. End: 2018-08-31.
What is AECOM Technical Services, Inc.'s track record with NASA and other federal agencies for similar architectural and engineering contracts?
AECOM Technical Services, Inc. has a substantial history of performing architectural and engineering services for various federal agencies, including NASA. Their portfolio often includes large-scale infrastructure projects, facility design, and program management. For NASA specifically, AECOM has likely been involved in numerous contracts supporting space exploration infrastructure, research facilities, and administrative buildings across different centers. A detailed review of their past performance ratings, any past performance issues, and the scale and complexity of previously completed NASA projects would provide a clearer picture of their suitability and reliability for this specific contract. Their extensive experience suggests a strong capability to handle complex requirements.
How does the per-unit cost or overall value of this contract compare to similar architectural services contracts awarded by NASA or other agencies?
Direct per-unit cost comparison is challenging without specific deliverables defined (e.g., cost per square foot designed, cost per design hour). However, the total contract value of $69.8 million over approximately 6.7 years (from Nov 2012 to Aug 2018) averages around $10.4 million annually. This figure needs to be contextualized against the size and complexity of NASA Ames Research Center's facilities and its ongoing capital improvement needs. Benchmarking against other large A-E contracts for major federal research or operational facilities would be necessary. Factors like the specific services required (e.g., conceptual design, detailed construction documents, construction administration), the uniqueness of the facilities, and prevailing market rates for architectural services in California would influence this comparison. The firm fixed-price nature and competitive award suggest an effort to achieve value.
What are the primary risk indicators associated with this contract, considering its duration and scope?
Key risk indicators for this contract include potential scope creep over its nearly six-year duration, especially if facility needs evolve significantly. Contractor performance risk is always present; a long-term reliance on a single entity for critical architectural services could be problematic if quality declines or key personnel depart. There's also a risk related to the accuracy of initial cost estimations under the firm fixed-price structure, although this structure is designed to mitigate cost overruns for the government. Furthermore, changes in NASA's strategic priorities or budget allocations could impact the project's continuity or scope. Ensuring robust oversight and clear communication channels will be crucial to mitigating these risks.
How effective has NASA been in leveraging competition for architectural services contracts of this magnitude?
The award of this contract through 'full and open competition' with five bidders suggests NASA effectively leveraged the competitive process for this requirement. A healthy number of bidders generally indicates that the market is aware of the opportunity and capable of meeting the requirements, which fosters price discovery and potentially leads to better value for the government. NASA's overall effectiveness in leveraging competition can be assessed by examining the number of bidders on similar large-scale A-E contracts, the frequency of sole-source awards in this category, and trends in contract pricing over time. This specific instance appears positive, but a broader analysis across NASA's contracting portfolio would provide a more comprehensive view.
What are the historical spending patterns for architectural and engineering services at NASA Ames Research Center?
Historical spending patterns for architectural and engineering (A-E) services at NASA Ames Research Center would reveal the agency's investment trends in facility maintenance, upgrades, and new construction. Analyzing past contracts, their values, durations, and the types of services procured would indicate whether spending has been consistent, increasing, or decreasing. This $69.8 million contract represents a significant investment over its period. Understanding if this aligns with or deviates from historical norms requires examining prior A-E spending at Ames. Factors such as major facility modernization initiatives, new research programs requiring specialized infrastructure, or deferred maintenance backlogs could explain fluctuations in spending.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services › Architectural Services
Product/Service Code: ARCHITECT/ENGINEER SERVICES › ARCH-ENG SVCS - GENERAL
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Solicitation Procedures: ARCHITECT-ENGINEER FAR 6.102
Offers Received: 5
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Parent Company: AECOM (UEI: 153561212)
Address: 515 S FLOWER ST FL 4, LOS ANGELES, CA, 90071
Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $69,960,000
Exercised Options: $69,960,000
Current Obligation: $69,768,618
Subaward Activity
Number of Subawards: 784
Total Subaward Amount: $77,733,740
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM
Cost or Pricing Data: YES
Timeline
Start Date: 2012-11-01
Current End Date: 2018-08-31
Potential End Date: 2018-08-31 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2020-05-28
More Contracts from AECOM Technical Services, Inc.
- DB Repair Berths 40 and 41, Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, VA — $229.7M (Department of Defense)
- L-536 Interim/Final Levee Repairs — $121.5M (Department of Defense)
- Alternate Care Facility (ACF): Suny OLD Westbury - OLD Westbury, NY — $121.4M (Department of Defense)
- Fwda Parcel 3 Closure&corrective Action, Fort Wingate Depot Activity, Mckinley County, NEW Mexico — $107.1M (Department of Defense)
- Typhoon Mawar Recovery AT Various Locations in Joint Region Maria — $101.4M (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 →