NASA's $24.9M Facilities Support Contract Awarded to Sierra Lobo Inc. for Plum Brook Station
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $24,923,645 ($24.9M)
Contractor: Sierra Lobo Inc
Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Start Date: 2010-08-01
End Date: 2015-05-31
Contract Duration: 1,764 days
Daily Burn Rate: $14.1K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES
Number of Offers Received: 2
Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE
Sector: Other
Official Description: TFOME - PLUM BROOK INSTITUTIONAL
Place of Performance
Location: SANDUSKY, ERIE County, OHIO, 44870
State: Ohio Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $24.9 million to SIERRA LOBO INC for work described as: TFOME - PLUM BROOK INSTITUTIONAL Key points: 1. Contract value represents a significant investment in maintaining critical research infrastructure. 2. Competition dynamics suggest a potentially competitive bidding process for specialized services. 3. Performance period of nearly five years indicates a need for sustained operational support. 4. The contract's focus on facilities support highlights the importance of infrastructure for agency operations. 5. Geographic concentration in Ohio underscores the localized nature of this specific facility's needs.
Value Assessment
Rating: good
The contract value of $24.9 million over its duration appears reasonable for comprehensive facilities support services at a specialized research institution like Plum Brook Station. Benchmarking against similar large-scale facility management contracts within federal agencies would provide a more precise value-for-money assessment. However, given the specialized nature of the facility, costs are likely influenced by unique operational requirements and safety protocols.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: limited
The contract was awarded under 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES,' indicating that while a broad competition was initially considered, specific exclusions were applied. This suggests that only a limited number of qualified bidders were likely invited to submit proposals. The exact number of bidders is not specified, but the limited nature implies less price discovery than a truly open competition.
Taxpayer Impact: While not fully open, the competition method likely ensured some level of price negotiation. Taxpayers benefit from specialized services being provided by a qualified contractor, but the potential for higher costs due to limited bidders exists.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiaries are NASA and its researchers at the Plum Brook Station, who receive uninterrupted access to well-maintained facilities. Services delivered include essential facility operations, maintenance, and support critical for the station's unique testing capabilities. The geographic impact is concentrated in Sandusky, Ohio, where the Plum Brook Station is located. Workforce implications include the potential for direct and indirect employment opportunities in the local Ohio region for facility management and support roles.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen facility issues arise requiring extensive repairs.
- Dependence on a single contractor for critical infrastructure could pose risks if performance falters.
Positive Signals
- Contract awarded to a single entity suggests a streamlined management approach.
- The duration of the contract implies a stable operational environment for the facility.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the Facilities Support Services sector, a critical component of government operations that ensures the functionality and safety of physical infrastructure. The market for these services is substantial, encompassing a wide range of maintenance, repair, and operational activities. NASA's spending in this area is crucial for maintaining its unique research and development facilities, such as the Plum Brook Station, which requires specialized support beyond typical office building management.
Small Business Impact
The contract details do not indicate any specific small business set-asides or subcontracting requirements. The award to Sierra Lobo Inc., a single entity, suggests that small businesses may not have been primary targets for this specific prime contract. Further analysis of Sierra Lobo's subcontracting plan would be needed to assess the impact on the small business ecosystem.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by NASA's contracting officers and program managers responsible for the Plum Brook Station. Accountability measures are embedded within the contract's performance standards and delivery requirements. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases, though detailed performance metrics may not be publicly available.
Related Government Programs
- NASA Research and Development Facilities Management
- Federal Facilities Operations and Maintenance
- Aerospace Research Infrastructure Support
Risk Flags
- Potential for cost creep under CPFF structure
- Dependence on single contractor for critical infrastructure
- Limited competition may impact price optimization
Tags
nasa, facilities-support-services, sierra-lobo-inc, cost-plus-fixed-fee, ohio, research-and-development, limited-competition, nasa-plum-brook-station, aerospace, infrastructure-maintenance
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $24.9 million to SIERRA LOBO INC. TFOME - PLUM BROOK INSTITUTIONAL
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 $24.9 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2010-08-01. End: 2015-05-31.
What is Sierra Lobo Inc.'s track record with NASA and other federal agencies for similar facilities support contracts?
Sierra Lobo Inc. has a history of providing engineering and technical services to NASA and other government agencies. Their experience often includes support for research facilities, aerospace testing, and specialized equipment maintenance. While specific details on past performance for contracts of this exact scope and value would require deeper database analysis, their presence in the federal contracting space suggests a level of established capability. Reviewing past performance evaluations and any documented issues or commendations would provide a clearer picture of their reliability and effectiveness in managing complex facility operations.
How does the cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) pricing structure compare to other federal facilities support contracts?
The Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) pricing structure, as indicated for this contract, is common for services where the scope of work can be difficult to define precisely upfront or involves research and development elements. This structure allows the contractor to recover allowable costs plus a predetermined fixed fee representing profit. Compared to fixed-price contracts, CPFF can offer flexibility but may carry a higher risk of cost overruns if not managed diligently. For facilities support, it's often used when unexpected repairs or specialized maintenance are anticipated. Benchmarking against similar NASA or DoD facilities contracts would reveal if the fee percentage is within the typical range for this type of work.
What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to evaluate Sierra Lobo Inc.'s performance under this contract?
Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for a facilities support contract like this typically focus on operational uptime, response times for maintenance requests, preventative maintenance completion rates, safety compliance, and overall facility condition assessments. For NASA's Plum Brook Station, specific KPIs would likely be tailored to the unique testing equipment and research environments housed within the facility, ensuring minimal disruption to ongoing scientific endeavors. Performance would be monitored through regular reporting, site inspections, and potentially user satisfaction surveys from NASA personnel utilizing the facilities. Failure to meet these KPIs could result in contractually defined remedies or penalties.
What is the historical spending trend for facilities support services at NASA's Plum Brook Station?
Historical spending data for facilities support at NASA's Plum Brook Station would reveal trends in investment for maintaining its unique infrastructure. Analyzing spending over several years prior to and following this contract award would indicate whether the $24.9 million represents an increase, decrease, or stable level of funding for these services. Significant fluctuations might correlate with major upgrades, new research initiatives, or deferred maintenance. Understanding this trend provides context for the current contract's value and helps assess if resource allocation is consistent with the facility's operational needs and strategic priorities.
What are the potential risks associated with relying on a single contractor for such a critical research facility?
Relying on a single contractor for critical research facility support introduces several potential risks. Foremost is the risk of service disruption if the contractor experiences financial difficulties, labor disputes, or management issues. There's also a potential for reduced innovation or complacency if competition is limited. Furthermore, if the contractor's performance is unsatisfactory, the process of transitioning to a new provider can be lengthy, costly, and disruptive to ongoing research operations. NASA would mitigate these risks through robust contract oversight, performance incentives, and contingency planning, including maintaining detailed knowledge of facility operations.
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: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE
Offers Received: 2
Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Address: 426 CROGHAN STREET, FREMONT, OH, 43420
Business Categories: 8(a) Program Participant, Category Business, Hispanic American Owned Business, Minority Owned Business, Small Business, Special Designations
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $24,923,645
Exercised Options: $24,923,645
Current Obligation: $24,923,645
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED
Parent Contract
Parent Award PIID: NNC05CA95C
IDV Type: IDC
Timeline
Start Date: 2010-08-01
Current End Date: 2015-05-31
Potential End Date: 2015-05-31 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2017-03-23
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 →