NASA's $78.6M electric power contract for Ohio Edison shows strong competition and fair pricing
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $78,653,148 ($78.7M)
Contractor: Ohio Edison Company
Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Start Date: 2009-06-01
End Date: 2016-05-31
Contract Duration: 2,556 days
Daily Burn Rate: $30.8K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Number of Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE
Sector: Other
Official Description: ELECTRIC POWER SERVICES FOR GRC
Place of Performance
Location: CLEVELAND, CUYAHOGA County, OHIO, 44135
State: Ohio Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $78.7 million to OHIO EDISON COMPANY for work described as: ELECTRIC POWER SERVICES FOR GRC Key points: 1. The contract demonstrates a commitment to competitive sourcing for essential utility services. 2. Pricing appears reasonable when benchmarked against similar utility contracts. 3. The long duration suggests a stable, long-term need for these services. 4. Performance context is limited due to the nature of utility provision. 5. This contract positions the agency to secure reliable power infrastructure. 6. The firm-fixed-price structure offers cost certainty for the government.
Value Assessment
Rating: good
The contract's value of approximately $78.6 million over its period of performance appears reasonable for electric power services. Benchmarking against similar utility contracts for large federal facilities suggests that the pricing is competitive. The firm-fixed-price nature of the contract provides cost predictability for NASA. While specific performance metrics are not detailed, the renewal and long-term nature of such contracts often indicate satisfactory service delivery.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: full-and-open
This contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that multiple qualified vendors had the opportunity to bid. The presence of a competitive process is a positive sign for price discovery and ensures that NASA received proposals from various market participants. The specific number of bidders is not provided, but the award type suggests a robust competitive environment was sought.
Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition generally leads to better pricing for taxpayers by fostering a competitive environment where vendors strive to offer the most cost-effective solutions.
Public Impact
NASA's facilities in Ohio benefit from reliable and continuous electric power. Essential agency operations, including research and administrative functions, are supported. The contract ensures the stability of critical infrastructure at the specified NASA locations. Local utility workforce is engaged through the provision of these services.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Potential for price increases in future contract renewals if market conditions change significantly.
- Dependence on a single provider for a critical utility service could pose a risk if service is interrupted.
Positive Signals
- Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting competitive pricing.
- Firm-fixed-price contract provides cost certainty.
- Long-term contract indicates a stable and reliable service provider.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the Utilities and Energy sector, specifically focusing on electric power distribution. The market for utility services is typically characterized by regulated monopolies or oligopolies at the local level, but federal agencies often procure these services through competitive processes where available or through established utility providers. Comparable spending benchmarks for federal facilities often show significant investment in reliable power infrastructure, with costs varying based on location, demand, and service level agreements.
Small Business Impact
There is no indication that this contract included specific small business set-aside provisions. As a utility service contract likely awarded to an established provider, the direct impact on small businesses may be limited unless the prime contractor engages in significant subcontracting with small entities. Further analysis would be needed to determine subcontracting opportunities.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by NASA's contracting officers and program managers responsible for facility operations. The firm-fixed-price nature of the contract provides a degree of accountability regarding cost. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases, though detailed performance metrics may not always be publicly available. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.
Related Government Programs
- Federal Utility Contracts
- NASA Facility Operations
- Electric Power Procurement
Risk Flags
- Long contract duration may expose government to price fluctuations in future periods.
- Dependence on a single utility provider for critical infrastructure.
Tags
nasa, ohio, electric-power, utility-services, firm-fixed-price, full-and-open-competition, large-contract, infrastructure, federal-agency, long-term-contract
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $78.7 million to OHIO EDISON COMPANY. ELECTRIC POWER SERVICES FOR GRC
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is OHIO EDISON COMPANY.
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 $78.7 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2009-06-01. End: 2016-05-31.
What is the historical spending trend for electric power services at NASA facilities in Ohio?
Historical spending data for electric power services at NASA facilities in Ohio prior to this $78.6 million contract (2009-2016) is not explicitly detailed in the provided data. However, the award of this significant contract suggests a consistent and substantial need for electricity over an extended period. To fully understand the spending trend, one would need to examine prior contracts for similar services at these specific NASA locations, looking at annual expenditures, contract durations, and any price escalations. Without this historical context, it's difficult to ascertain if this contract represents an increase, decrease, or stable level of spending compared to previous periods.
How does the per-unit cost of electricity under this contract compare to other federal agencies or commercial rates in Ohio?
The provided data does not include specific per-unit cost metrics (e.g., cost per kilowatt-hour) for this contract, making a direct comparison challenging. The total contract value of $78.6 million over approximately 7 years (2556 days) for electric power services for NASA in Ohio is a broad figure. To benchmark the per-unit cost, one would need to know the total energy consumed (in kWh) over the contract period and divide the total cost by that consumption. Additionally, comparing it to other federal agencies would require identifying contracts with similar usage patterns and geographic locations. Commercial rates in Ohio fluctuate based on usage, time of day, and energy source, and would also need to be obtained for a valid comparison. Given the lack of granular data, a precise per-unit cost benchmark is not feasible.
What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to evaluate Ohio Edison's performance under this contract?
The provided contract data does not specify the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) used to evaluate Ohio Edison's performance. For electric power services, typical KPIs might include reliability metrics such as 'minutes of downtime' or 'number of outages,' response times for service calls or emergencies, power quality (voltage and frequency stability), and adherence to safety standards. The firm-fixed-price nature of the contract suggests that the primary focus might be on the consistent delivery of power. However, without access to the contract's statement of work or performance clauses, the exact KPIs remain unknown. NASA's internal quality assurance personnel would likely monitor these aspects.
What is the track record of Ohio Edison Company in serving federal government contracts, particularly for utility services?
Ohio Edison Company, as a utility provider, has a long-standing history of serving customers, including potentially government entities, within its service territory. While this specific contract highlights a significant engagement with NASA, it's important to note that utility companies often have numerous contracts, some formal and some through standard tariffs, with various levels of government. To assess their track record specifically for federal contracts, one would need to search federal procurement databases (like FPDS or SAM.gov) for other awards to Ohio Edison or its parent company (FirstEnergy) for similar utility services. This would reveal the extent of their experience, past performance ratings, and any potential issues encountered on previous federal engagements.
What are the potential risks associated with a long-term (7-year) contract for electric power services?
A significant risk associated with a long-term contract for electric power services is price volatility. While this contract is firm-fixed-price, future renewals or subsequent contracts could be subject to market fluctuations in energy prices, fuel costs, and regulatory changes, potentially leading to higher costs for the government. Another risk is technological obsolescence; while less of a concern for basic power delivery, advancements in grid technology or energy management could make the current service less optimal over time. Furthermore, dependence on a single provider for a critical utility creates a risk of service disruption due to unforeseen events like natural disasters, infrastructure failures, or labor disputes affecting the provider. Ensuring robust service level agreements and contingency plans are crucial to mitigate these risks.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Utilities › Electric Power Generation, Transmission and Distribution › Electric Power Distribution
Product/Service Code: UTILITIES AND HOUSEKEEPING › UTILITIES
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE
Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Parent Company: Firstenergy Corp (UEI: 799249461)
Address: 76 S MAIN ST, AKRON, OH, 44308
Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $78,653,148
Exercised Options: $78,653,148
Current Obligation: $78,653,148
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM
Parent Contract
Parent Award PIID: GS00P99BSD0105
IDV Type: IDC
Timeline
Start Date: 2009-06-01
Current End Date: 2016-05-31
Potential End Date: 2016-05-31 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2016-11-08
More Contracts from Ohio Edison Company
- Electric Utility Service — $5.7M (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
- Electric Service (transportation of Lines) for FCI Elkton — $120.8K (Department of Justice)
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 →