NASA awards $107.7M contract for vibro-acoustic test facility, with Leidos Engineering LLC as prime
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $107,697,143 ($107.7M)
Contractor: Leidos Engineering LLC
Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Start Date: 2007-09-05
End Date: 2014-01-31
Contract Duration: 2,340 days
Daily Burn Rate: $46.0K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Number of Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: COST PLUS INCENTIVE FEE
Sector: Construction
Official Description: DESIGN/BUILD AND COMMISSION OF A VIBRO-ACOUSTIC TEST CAPABILITY AT NASA PLUM BROOK STATION SPACE POWER FACILITY
Place of Performance
Location: SANDUSKY, ERIE County, OHIO, 44870
State: Ohio Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $107.7 million to LEIDOS ENGINEERING LLC for work described as: DESIGN/BUILD AND COMMISSION OF A VIBRO-ACOUSTIC TEST CAPABILITY AT NASA PLUM BROOK STATION SPACE POWER FACILITY Key points: 1. Contract awarded for a specialized test capability crucial for space exploration. 2. The contract type is Cost Plus Incentive Fee, suggesting performance-based incentives. 3. A significant duration of 2340 days indicates a long-term, complex project. 4. The prime contractor, Leidos Engineering LLC, has a substantial presence in government contracting. 5. The project is located in Ohio, potentially impacting the local economy and workforce. 6. The absence of small business set-asides may limit direct opportunities for smaller firms.
Value Assessment
Rating: fair
The contract value of $107.7 million for a Design/Build and Commission of a vibro-acoustic test capability appears to be within a reasonable range for such specialized infrastructure. Benchmarking against similar large-scale, highly technical facility construction projects for government agencies like NASA is challenging due to the unique nature of vibro-acoustic testing. However, the Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) structure suggests an attempt to control costs through performance incentives, which can be a positive indicator for value if managed effectively. Further analysis would require detailed cost breakdowns and comparison to industry standards for specialized testing facilities.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: full-and-open
This contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit a bid. The number of bidders is not specified, but full and open competition generally fosters a competitive environment that can lead to better pricing and innovation. This approach is standard for significant federal procurements and aims to ensure the government receives the best value by considering a wide range of potential contractors.
Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers benefit from full and open competition through potentially lower prices and higher quality services due to a robust bidding process. It ensures that public funds are used efficiently by driving down costs and encouraging contractors to offer their best solutions.
Public Impact
This facility will enable NASA to conduct critical vibro-acoustic testing for spacecraft and components, ensuring their resilience in harsh space environments. The project directly supports NASA's mission objectives for space exploration and scientific research. The construction and commissioning phases will likely create jobs in the Ohio region, benefiting the local workforce. The advanced testing capability will enhance the reliability and safety of future space missions.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- The Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) contract type can lead to cost overruns if not closely monitored, as the contractor is reimbursed for costs plus a fee that is adjusted based on performance.
- The long contract duration (2340 days) increases the risk of scope creep, schedule delays, and potential changes in requirements over time.
- The lack of specific details on the number of bidders in the full and open competition makes it difficult to fully assess the competitive pressure on pricing.
- The absence of small business set-asides means that opportunities for smaller, specialized firms to directly participate may be limited, potentially reducing broader economic impact.
Positive Signals
- The use of full and open competition is a positive signal, indicating a commitment to a fair and transparent procurement process that seeks the best value.
- The Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) structure, if managed well, can incentivize the contractor to achieve specific performance targets and cost efficiencies.
- The project's focus on a critical testing capability for NASA suggests a high level of technical expertise and strategic importance.
- The prime contractor, Leidos Engineering LLC, is a large and experienced entity in government contracting, suggesting a capacity to handle complex projects.
Sector Analysis
The contract falls within the specialty trade contractors sector, specifically related to the construction and outfitting of specialized testing facilities. This niche area requires significant engineering expertise and adherence to stringent quality and safety standards, particularly for aerospace applications. The market for such specialized facilities is often driven by government agencies like NASA, with limited private sector demand. Comparable spending benchmarks are difficult to establish due to the unique nature of vibro-acoustic testing capabilities.
Small Business Impact
This contract was not set aside for small businesses, and the prime contractor is not a small business. This means that direct prime contracting opportunities for small businesses were not specifically allocated. However, the prime contractor, Leidos Engineering LLC, may engage small businesses as subcontractors for specialized services or materials, which could provide indirect opportunities. The overall impact on the small business ecosystem depends on the subcontracting plans and the availability of relevant small business capabilities.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would primarily be managed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). As a Cost Plus Incentive Fee contract, NASA would be responsible for monitoring the contractor's costs, performance against established metrics, and adherence to the contract terms. Transparency would be facilitated through contract reporting requirements and potentially through NASA's public affairs office regarding project milestones. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply to any allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse related to the contract.
Related Government Programs
- NASA Research and Development
- NASA Facilities Construction
- Aerospace Testing Infrastructure
- Specialty Engineering Services
- Government Infrastructure Projects
Risk Flags
- Long Contract Duration
- Cost Plus Incentive Fee Structure
- Potential for Scope Creep
- Technological Obsolescence Risk
Tags
nasa, construction, specialty-trade-contractors, full-and-open-competition, definitive-contract, cost-plus-incentive-fee, large-contract, ohio, infrastructure, aerospace, testing-facility
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $107.7 million to LEIDOS ENGINEERING LLC. DESIGN/BUILD AND COMMISSION OF A VIBRO-ACOUSTIC TEST CAPABILITY AT NASA PLUM BROOK STATION SPACE POWER FACILITY
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is LEIDOS ENGINEERING 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 $107.7 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2007-09-05. End: 2014-01-31.
What is the track record of Leidos Engineering LLC with NASA on similar large-scale infrastructure projects?
Leidos Engineering LLC, and its predecessor entities, have a significant history of working with NASA and other federal agencies on complex engineering and construction projects. While specific details on vibro-acoustic test facilities are not readily available in public databases for this exact contractor and agency pairing, Leidos has a broad portfolio encompassing design, engineering, and construction management for critical infrastructure. Their experience often includes large-scale projects requiring specialized technical expertise. A deeper dive into NASA's contract databases and Leidos's project history would reveal specific past performance metrics, any past issues, and their success rates on comparable projects, which are crucial for assessing their capability to deliver this vibro-acoustic test facility effectively and on time.
How does the awarded amount compare to the estimated cost or budget for this vibro-acoustic test capability?
The awarded amount of $107,697,143 represents the total contract value. Without access to NASA's pre-solicitation estimates or internal budget allocations for this specific project, a direct comparison to determine if it represents a cost overrun or savings is not possible. However, the contract type, Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF), suggests that the initial cost estimates may have been established, and the final price could fluctuate based on performance incentives. The 'br' field in the provided data shows a 'base' value of $4,602,400, which might represent an initial base cost or a portion of the total, but its exact meaning in relation to the total contract value is unclear without further context. A comprehensive value assessment would require comparing this figure against industry benchmarks for similar specialized testing facilities, considering the scope, complexity, and technological requirements.
What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) tied to the incentive fee structure of this contract?
The provided data indicates a 'Cost Plus Incentive Fee' (CPIF) contract type, but it does not specify the exact Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) that trigger the incentive fee adjustments. Typically, for construction and commissioning of specialized facilities, KPIs could include adherence to schedule milestones, meeting specific performance and quality standards for the test capability (e.g., accuracy, range, reliability of measurements), safety record during construction, and successful commissioning and validation of the facility. The incentive fee structure is designed to motivate the contractor to exceed baseline performance expectations. Understanding these specific KPIs is crucial for assessing how effectively the contract aligns contractor performance with NASA's objectives and taxpayer interests.
What is the historical spending trend for vibro-acoustic test capabilities at NASA or similar agencies?
Historical spending data specifically for vibro-acoustic test capabilities at NASA or similar agencies is not readily available in the provided summary data. Such specialized infrastructure projects are typically infrequent and highly project-specific, making broad spending trend analysis difficult. General trends in NASA's capital investments and facilities construction budgets would offer a wider context. However, the significant investment of over $107 million for this single capability suggests it is a high-priority, complex undertaking. To understand historical spending, one would need to query federal procurement databases for similar contracts awarded over time, considering factors like inflation, technological advancements, and the scale of the facilities.
What are the potential risks associated with the long duration (2340 days) of this contract?
The 2340-day duration (approximately 6.4 years) of this contract presents several potential risks. Firstly, there is an increased likelihood of scope creep, where requirements may evolve or expand over the extended period, potentially leading to cost overruns and schedule delays if not managed rigorously. Secondly, technological advancements in vibro-acoustic testing could occur during this timeframe, potentially making the commissioned facility outdated or less effective by its completion. Thirdly, personnel and contractor team stability can be a concern over such a long period, impacting knowledge transfer and project continuity. Finally, economic fluctuations or changes in government funding priorities could affect the project's sustained support. NASA's robust project management and change control processes will be critical to mitigating these risks.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Construction › Other Specialty Trade Contractors › All Other Specialty Trade Contractors
Product/Service Code: PURCHASE OF STRUCTURES/FACILITIES › PURCHASE BUILDINGS
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE
Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: COST PLUS INCENTIVE FEE (V)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Parent Company: Leidos Holdings, Inc. (UEI: 611641312)
Address: 9400 N BROADWAY EXT, OKLAHOMA CITY, OK, 73114
Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $113,266,774
Exercised Options: $113,266,774
Current Obligation: $107,697,143
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED
Cost or Pricing Data: NOT OBTAINED - WAIVED
Timeline
Start Date: 2007-09-05
Current End Date: 2014-01-31
Potential End Date: 2017-07-16 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2018-08-22
More Contracts from Leidos Engineering LLC
- Nitrocellulose Plant — $16.9M (Department of Defense)
- Federal Contract — $12.5M (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 →