NASA's $30M engineering support contract with Sierra Lobo Inc. shows long-term engagement and cost-plus award fee structure
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $30,090,073 ($30.1M)
Contractor: Sierra Lobo Inc
Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Start Date: 2006-04-08
End Date: 2015-03-21
Contract Duration: 3,269 days
Daily Burn Rate: $9.2K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES
Number of Offers Received: 2
Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE
Sector: Other
Official Description: 347 WORK ORDER UNDER ENGINEERING DIRECT OUTLINE AGREEMENT NNC05CA95C
Place of Performance
Location: FREMONT, SANDUSKY County, OHIO, 43420
State: Ohio Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $30.1 million to SIERRA LOBO INC for work described as: 347 WORK ORDER UNDER ENGINEERING DIRECT OUTLINE AGREEMENT NNC05CA95C Key points: 1. The contract utilized a cost-plus award fee structure, incentivizing performance but potentially leading to higher costs if not managed closely. 2. With a duration of 3269 days, this represents a significant long-term commitment by NASA for engineering support services. 3. The contract was awarded under 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources,' indicating a competitive process with specific justifications. 4. Sierra Lobo Inc. has been a consistent provider of facilities support services to NASA, suggesting a strong existing relationship and performance record. 5. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 561210 points to facilities support services, a critical but often behind-the-scenes function. 6. The contract's value of approximately $30 million over its extended period suggests a substantial investment in specialized engineering expertise.
Value Assessment
Rating: fair
The contract's cost-plus award fee structure allows for performance incentives but requires diligent oversight to ensure value for money. Benchmarking against similar long-term engineering support contracts would be necessary for a definitive value assessment. The extended duration suggests NASA found the services provided to be consistently valuable, but the fee structure warrants scrutiny for potential cost overruns.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: limited
The contract was awarded under 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources.' This designation implies that while the competition was initially intended to be broad, specific circumstances led to the exclusion of certain sources. The exact reasons for this exclusion are not detailed but suggest a justification was provided to regulatory bodies. The presence of two bidders indicates some level of competition, but the exclusion of other potential bidders may have limited the full scope of market price discovery.
Taxpayer Impact: The exclusion of sources, even with justification, means taxpayers may not have benefited from the lowest possible price achievable through a completely unrestricted competitive process.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiaries are NASA's engineering and research programs, which receive essential support services. Services delivered include facilities support, crucial for maintaining operational infrastructure at NASA facilities. The geographic impact is likely concentrated around the NASA facilities where Sierra Lobo Inc. provides its services. Workforce implications include the employment of skilled engineers and support staff by Sierra Lobo Inc. to fulfill the contract requirements.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Cost-plus award fee structures can incentivize contractors to incur costs to achieve higher fees, requiring robust oversight.
- The 'exclusion of sources' in the competition, even if justified, raises questions about the extent of true market competition.
- The long duration of the contract could indicate a lack of agile procurement or potential lock-in with a single provider.
Positive Signals
- The contract was awarded following a competitive process, suggesting some level of market vetting.
- The use of an award fee structure indicates NASA's intent to incentivize high performance.
- The long-term nature of the contract implies a stable and reliable service provider for critical NASA functions.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the Facilities Support Services sector, a broad category encompassing maintenance, repair, and operational support for physical infrastructure. The market for such services is substantial, driven by government agencies and large private organizations requiring specialized expertise to manage complex facilities. NASA's reliance on such contracts highlights the importance of specialized engineering and operational support for its unique research and development environments. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing other large-scale facilities management contracts awarded by federal agencies.
Small Business Impact
This contract does not appear to have a small business set-aside component, as indicated by 'ss': false and 'sb': false. Therefore, its direct impact on small business set-asides is negligible. However, as a large prime contract, there could be subcontracting opportunities for small businesses, depending on Sierra Lobo Inc.'s subcontracting plan and the nature of the services required. Analysis of subcontracting reports would be needed to determine the extent of small business participation.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would primarily reside with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). As a cost-plus award fee contract, NASA's contracting officers and technical representatives would be responsible for monitoring costs, evaluating performance against award fee criteria, and ensuring compliance with contract terms. Transparency would be facilitated through contract award databases and potentially through NASA's Inspector General reports if any issues arise. The specific oversight mechanisms would be detailed within the contract's statement of work and administrative clauses.
Related Government Programs
- NASA Engineering Support Services
- Federal Facilities Maintenance Contracts
- Cost-Plus Award Fee Contracts
- Aerospace Engineering Services
Risk Flags
- Potential for cost overruns due to CPAF structure
- Limited competition due to source exclusion
- Long contract duration may reduce flexibility
Tags
nasa, engineering-support, facilities-support-services, cost-plus-award-fee, full-and-open-competition, sierra-lobo-inc, long-term-contract, federal-contract, aerospace, ohio
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $30.1 million to SIERRA LOBO INC. 347 WORK ORDER UNDER ENGINEERING DIRECT OUTLINE AGREEMENT NNC05CA95C
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is SIERRA LOBO 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 $30.1 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2006-04-08. End: 2015-03-21.
What is Sierra Lobo Inc.'s track record with NASA and other federal agencies?
Sierra Lobo Inc. has a significant history of contracting with NASA, particularly for engineering and technical services. Data indicates multiple work orders and contracts with NASA over several years, suggesting a sustained relationship. Their specialization in areas like aerospace engineering, propulsion, and facilities support aligns with NASA's mission requirements. While specific details on performance metrics across all contracts are not publicly detailed in this summary, the repeated awarding of contracts implies a satisfactory performance history. Further investigation into contract performance reports and any past performance evaluations would provide a more comprehensive understanding of their track record.
How does the value of this contract compare to similar engineering support contracts at NASA?
The approximate $30 million value over a duration of 3269 days (over 9 years) places this contract as a substantial, long-term engagement for specialized engineering support. To benchmark effectively, one would need to compare it against other large-scale, multi-year engineering services contracts awarded by NASA or similar agencies like the Department of Defense or the National Science Foundation. Factors such as the specific technical expertise required, the complexity of the facilities supported, and the duration of the contract are critical comparison points. Without direct access to a database of comparable contracts with detailed scope and pricing, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging, but the scale suggests a significant investment in critical support functions.
What are the primary risks associated with a cost-plus award fee contract of this nature?
The primary risks associated with a cost-plus award fee (CPAF) contract like this one involve potential cost overruns and contractor incentives. In a CPAF structure, the contractor is reimbursed for allowable costs plus a fee that is composed of a fixed base fee and an award amount based on performance. The risk is that contractors might be incentivized to incur higher costs to achieve higher award fees, especially if performance metrics are not tightly defined or if oversight is lax. NASA must diligently monitor all incurred costs to ensure they are reasonable, allocable, and allowable. Additionally, the subjective nature of 'award' criteria can lead to disputes if not clearly articulated and objectively measured. Effective risk mitigation requires robust contract administration and performance monitoring.
How effective has NASA been in managing its facilities support services contracts historically?
NASA's historical effectiveness in managing facilities support services contracts is varied and depends on the specific contract, agency center, and period. Generally, large federal agencies like NASA face ongoing challenges in optimizing facilities management due to the scale and complexity of their operations. Success often hinges on strong contract oversight, clear performance metrics, and proactive risk management. Inspector General reports and Government Accountability Office (GAO) reviews occasionally highlight areas for improvement, such as cost control, contractor performance evaluation, and ensuring fair competition. NASA's long-term engagement with specific contractors like Sierra Lobo Inc. suggests a degree of success in maintaining operational continuity, but continuous evaluation is necessary to ensure efficiency and value.
What does the 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' designation imply for cost and efficiency?
The designation 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' implies a competitive process was initiated, but specific, justified reasons led to the exclusion of certain potential bidders. This typically occurs when only a limited number of sources possess the necessary capabilities, or when national security or other specific requirements necessitate limiting the pool. While it indicates competition occurred, the exclusion means the market may not have been fully explored, potentially leading to higher prices than if all capable sources had participated. The efficiency and cost-effectiveness are thus contingent on the validity of the exclusion justification and the competitiveness among the remaining bidders. If the exclusion was well-founded and competition among the remaining few was robust, costs could still be reasonable; however, a broader competition generally yields better price discovery.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services › Facilities Support Services › Facilities Support Services
Product/Service Code: TECHNICAL REPRESENTATIVE SVCS. › TECHNICAL REPRESENTATIVE SERVICES
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES
Solicitation Procedures: SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION
Offers Received: 2
Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE (R)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Address: 426 CROGHAN STREET, FREMONT, OH, 09
Business Categories: 8(a) Program Participant, Category Business, Hispanic American Owned Business, Minority Owned Business, Small Business, Special Designations
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $57,298,129
Exercised Options: $57,298,129
Current Obligation: $30,090,073
Parent Contract
Parent Award PIID: NNC05CA95C
IDV Type: IDC
Timeline
Start Date: 2006-04-08
Current End Date: 2015-03-21
Potential End Date: 2015-03-21 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2010-08-11
More Contracts from Sierra Lobo Inc
- Environmental Testing and Integration Services (etis) II This Statement of Work (SOW) Specifies the Requirements for on Site Contractor Supplied Environmental Test and Integration and Other Laboratory Operations Services to the Goddard Space Flight Center (gsfc). the Scope of These Services Includes the Following: Operation, Maintenance, and Upgrade of Environmental Test Equipment and Facilities Located in the Gsfc Building 7/10/15/29 Complex, Area 300 Magnetic Test Site and Other Technical Facilities Located AT Various Locations Within Gsfc Including the Manufacturing and Electroplating Equipment and Facilities Primarily Located in Gsfc Building 5/10/21 Shops Mechanical and Optical Integration of Spacecraft, Flight Experiment Components, Instruments, Sub-Assemblies and Systems Design, Fabricate, and Manufacture Custom Spacecraft, Flight Experiment Components, Instruments, Sub-Assemblies and Systems Design, Manufacture, and Operation of Ground Handling Equipment and Fixtures Design, Manufacture, and Operation of Optical Alignment and Calibration Systems Design, Manufacture and Installation of Space Flight Thermal Blankets Design, Manufacture and Installation of Space Flight and Ground Support System Cable Harnesses Design, Manufacture, and Installation of Technical Facilities Including Buildings, Building Elements, Utility Systems, and Technical Equipment and Systems Define, Analyze, and Resolve Electromagnetic Radiation Issues Relating to Facility and Satellite Ground Support Equipment Operation Within the Test Complex. Support Spectrum Signature Analysis to Insure Interference-Free and Safe Operation of ALL Facility-Located Near Electromagnetic Wave Sensing Devices. Test and Integration Engineering and Engineering Analysis Cleanroom Operation and Maintenance Contamination Control Services Using Qualified and Experienced Personnel Maintenance and Operation of Certain Physical Plant Systems Such AS Processed Water, Emergency Power, Ln2/Gn2 Storage Systems, Conditioned Cleanroom AIR Hvac and Humidity Systems Recertification (testing and Inspection) of Lifting Devices and Equipment (LDE), and (inspection) of Pressure Vessels and Pressurized Systems (PVS) AT Gsfc, Greenbelt, Wallops, and Other Offsite Locations. Maintenance of LDE AT Greenbelt Site Only, NOT AT Other Sites; Non-Destructive Examination Testing of LDE and PVS Facility and Operations Safety Data Acquisition and Analysis System Development and Management — $251.0M (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
- Delivery Order for Line Item 001 Testcon of Outline Agreement Nnc05ca95c — $123.9M (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
- Test Engineering Contract Mechanism — $58.5M (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
- Building 65 Research and Development Structural Test Servcies — $43.2M (General Services Administration)
- R&D Space Flight and Associated Hardware AT Msfc (roll-Up Thru MOD 25) — $39.5M (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 →