NASA's $14.8M Logistics Contract with KBR WYLE SERVICES, LLC for Facilities Support Services
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $14,785,478 ($14.8M)
Contractor: KBR Wyle Services, LLC
Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Start Date: 2005-05-01
End Date: 2015-04-30
Contract Duration: 3,651 days
Daily Burn Rate: $4.0K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES
Number of Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE
Sector: Other
Official Description: LOGISTICS
Place of Performance
Location: CLEVELAND, CUYAHOGA County, OHIO, 44135
State: Ohio Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $14.8 million to KBR WYLE SERVICES, LLC for work described as: LOGISTICS Key points: 1. Contract awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 2. The contract type is Cost Plus Award Fee, which incentivizes performance but can lead to higher costs if not managed carefully. 3. A long duration of 3651 days (over 10 years) indicates a significant, long-term need for these services. 4. The contract was awarded as a Delivery Order, implying it's part of a larger indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) vehicle. 5. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 561210 points to facilities support services, a critical operational function. 6. The contract's value of approximately $14.8 million over its lifespan suggests a substantial investment in maintaining NASA's facilities.
Value Assessment
Rating: good
Benchmarking the value of this contract requires comparison to similar facilities support services contracts at NASA and other federal agencies. Given the extensive duration and the nature of facilities support, the total award amount of $14.8 million appears reasonable, averaging around $1.4 million annually. The Cost Plus Award Fee structure allows for performance-based incentives, which can drive efficiency and value, but necessitates diligent oversight to control costs and ensure the award fees are justified by exceptional performance.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: full-and-open
The contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources,' indicating that while the competition was broad, specific sources may have been excluded based on predefined criteria. This suggests a structured procurement process aimed at achieving best value. The number of bidders is not specified, but the 'full and open' designation implies multiple interested parties were likely considered, fostering price discovery and potentially leading to more competitive pricing.
Taxpayer Impact: A competitive award process generally benefits taxpayers by ensuring that the government secures services at a fair market price, minimizing the risk of overpayment and maximizing the efficient use of public funds.
Public Impact
NASA facilities across Ohio benefit from consistent and reliable support services, ensuring operational continuity. The contract supports the maintenance and operation of critical infrastructure necessary for NASA's research and development activities. Personnel employed by KBR WYLE SERVICES, LLC, and potentially subcontractors, are engaged in providing these essential services. The geographic impact is primarily focused on NASA facilities within Ohio, where the contractor's services are rendered.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Cost Plus Award Fee contracts require robust oversight to ensure award fees are earned through demonstrable performance and not simply cost accumulation.
- The long contract duration necessitates ongoing monitoring to ensure continued alignment with NASA's evolving needs and performance standards.
- Potential for scope creep exists in long-term facilities support contracts if not managed with clear objectives and change control processes.
Positive Signals
- The 'Full and Open Competition' award method suggests a commitment to leveraging market competition for best value.
- The contract's long-term nature provides stability for both the agency and the contractor, potentially leading to improved service quality through accumulated expertise.
- The award fee structure, if properly managed, can incentivize high performance and cost-consciousness from the contractor.
Sector Analysis
Facilities Support Services is a broad category within the professional, scientific, and technical services sector. This contract falls under the operational support functions crucial for large government 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, considering factors like facility size, scope of services, and geographic location.
Small Business Impact
The data indicates that small business participation was not a primary set-aside component for this specific contract (ss: false, sb: false). While KBR WYLE SERVICES, LLC is the prime contractor, there may be opportunities for small businesses to participate as subcontractors. The extent of small business subcontracting would depend on KBR's own procurement practices and any specific requirements outlined in the contract's terms and conditions.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would primarily reside with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Mechanisms likely include regular performance reviews, financial audits, and contract management personnel responsible for monitoring contractor deliverables and adherence to the Cost Plus Award Fee structure. Transparency is typically managed through contract reporting requirements and public contract databases, though specific operational details may be sensitive.
Related Government Programs
- NASA Facilities Maintenance Contracts
- Federal Facilities Support Services
- Logistics and Supply Chain Management Contracts
- Cost Plus Award Fee Contracts
- Government Facilities Operations
Risk Flags
- Long contract duration may lead to misalignment with evolving agency needs.
- Cost Plus Award Fee structure requires diligent oversight to manage costs effectively.
- Potential for contractor complacency over extended contract period.
Tags
logistics, nasa, facilities-support-services, kbr-wyle-services-llc, cost-plus-award-fee, delivery-order, full-and-open-competition, ohio, long-term-contract, professional-scientific-and-technical-services
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $14.8 million to KBR WYLE SERVICES, LLC. LOGISTICS
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is KBR WYLE SERVICES, 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 $14.8 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2005-05-01. End: 2015-04-30.
What is the historical spending trend for facilities support services at NASA, and how does this contract compare?
Historical spending on facilities support services at NASA can vary significantly year-to-year based on infrastructure projects, modernization efforts, and operational needs. Analyzing past NASA budgets and contract awards for similar services (NAICS 561210) would provide context. This $14.8 million contract, spanning over 10 years, represents a consistent, long-term investment. Without specific historical data for NASA's Ohio facilities, a direct comparison is difficult, but the annual average of approximately $1.4 million suggests a substantial but potentially standard allocation for comprehensive support of significant facilities. Trends might show increased spending during periods of facility expansion or decreased spending during budget austerity.
How effectively has KBR WYLE SERVICES, LLC performed on similar government contracts, particularly those with Cost Plus Award Fee structures?
Assessing KBR WYLE SERVICES, LLC's performance requires reviewing their past performance evaluations (e.g., Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System - CPARS) on government contracts. Specifically, analyzing their track record with Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contracts is crucial. CPAF contracts incentivize performance, and KBR's success would be indicated by consistently receiving high award fees, which are tied to exceeding performance standards. A review of CPAF contracts would reveal if they have demonstrated consistent value, managed costs effectively while achieving performance goals, and maintained strong client relationships. Poor performance indicators might include frequent disputes, low performance ratings, or significant cost overruns not justified by performance.
What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to determine award fees for this contract, and how are they measured?
For a Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract like this, Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) are critical for determining the award fee. While specific KPIs are detailed in the contract's Performance Work Statement (PWS), they typically revolve around areas such as facility maintenance responsiveness, preventative maintenance completion rates, energy efficiency targets, safety compliance, customer satisfaction, and project completion timeliness. Measurement methods would involve tracking service request response times, audit results for maintenance schedules, utility consumption data, incident reports, and formal client feedback. NASA contracting officers and technical representatives would regularly assess KBR's performance against these KPIs to justify the awarded fee amount.
What is the potential risk associated with the long duration (over 10 years) of this contract?
The primary risks associated with a contract duration exceeding 10 years include potential misalignment with evolving agency needs, technological obsolescence, and contractor complacency. NASA's requirements for facilities support may change significantly over a decade due to new research directions, technological advancements, or shifts in operational strategy. If the contract lacks flexibility or robust review mechanisms, it could lock the agency into outdated service models. Furthermore, a long tenure might reduce the contractor's incentive to innovate or maintain peak efficiency if they perceive job security. Mitigating these risks requires built-in contract review points, clear modification clauses, and continuous performance monitoring.
How does the 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' procurement method impact cost and competition compared to standard full and open competition?
The 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' method implies that while the competition was intended to be broad, certain potential offerors were excluded based on specific, documented reasons (e.g., inability to meet minimum requirements, past performance issues, or specific technical capabilities). This differs from standard full and open competition where all responsible sources are generally considered. The exclusion of sources, if justified and properly documented, can still lead to robust competition among the remaining qualified bidders. However, it might slightly limit the pool of potential competitors compared to an unrestricted full and open process. The impact on cost is generally positive, as competition drives prices down, but the degree of price reduction might be marginally less than in a completely unrestricted scenario.
What is the significance of the PSC code (if available) and NAICS code 561210 for understanding the scope of this contract?
The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 561210, 'Facilities Support Services,' is highly significant as it defines the primary business activity the contract is intended to cover. This includes a wide range of services such as building operation and maintenance, cleaning, security, landscaping, and potentially others necessary for the upkeep and functioning of physical facilities. While the Product and Service Code (PSC) is not provided in the data, it would offer further granularity on the specific types of goods or services procured. Together, these codes help categorize the contract within the federal procurement landscape, enabling spending analysis, market research, and comparison with similar contracts across the government.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services › Facilities Support Services › Facilities Support Services
Product/Service Code: SUPPORT SVCS (PROF, ADMIN, MGMT) › MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES
Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE
Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE (R)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Address: 7701 GREENBELT RD STE 400, GREENBELT, MD, 20770
Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, Subchapter S Corporation, U.S.-Owned Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $22,824,020
Exercised Options: $22,824,020
Current Obligation: $14,785,478
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED
Parent Contract
Parent Award PIID: NNC05CB17C
IDV Type: IDC
Timeline
Start Date: 2005-05-01
Current End Date: 2015-04-30
Potential End Date: 2015-04-30 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2016-06-14
More Contracts from KBR Wyle Services, LLC
- Bioastronautics Contract-Activities for the Health &productivity of Crews Working and Living in Space — $1.5B (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
- Fpds-Ng Mission Systems Operations Contract (msoc) — $1.0B (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
- THE Purpose of This Contract IS to Acquire Engineering Services and Related Services to MSD and Related Organizations Throughout Gsfc, AS Required, for the Formulation, Design, Development, Fabrication, Integration, Testing, Verification, and Operations of Space Flight and Ground System Hardware and Software, Including Development and Validation of NEW Technologies to Enable Future Space and Science Missions. the Engineering Areas of Emphasis ARE Multidisciplinary With Concentration in the Mechanical Engineering Areas of Materials, Structural Analysis and Loads, Mechanical Design, Electromechanical Design, Thermal, Contamination and Coatings, Manufacturing and Integration and Test — $728.5M (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
- 200106!000121!1700!F7004 !marine Corps Logistics Base !M6700499C0002 !a!n!*!n!p00015 !20010228!20080930!041014242!041014242!139691877!n!honeywell Technology Solutions!7000 Columbia Gateway Driv!columbia !md!21046!35000!031!12!jacksonville !duval !florida !+000004292865!n!n!000000000000!j049!maint & Repair of Eq/Maintenance & Repair Shop EQ !a4a!combat Vehicles !2000!NOT Discernable or Classified !811310!*!*!3! ! !C!*!*!*!B!*!*!A! !A !N!J!2!006!B! !C!Y!Z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !a!a!a!a!000!a!d!n! ! ! ! ! ! !0001! — $670.1M (Department of Defense)
- Mission Operations Management Services (moms) — $623.8M (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
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 →