NASA's $13.8M GISS contract to Sigma Space Partners shows R&D focus with a 5-year duration

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $13,810,295 ($13.8M)

Contractor: Sigma Space Partners, LLC

Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Start Date: 2006-07-01

End Date: 2011-06-30

Contract Duration: 1,825 days

Daily Burn Rate: $7.6K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 7

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE

Sector: R&D

Official Description: MISSION SUPPORT SERVICES AT THE GOODARD INSTITUTE FOR SPACE STUDIES (GISS).

Place of Performance

Location: NEW YORK, NEW YORK County, NEW YORK, 10025

State: New York Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $13.8 million to SIGMA SPACE PARTNERS, LLC for work described as: MISSION SUPPORT SERVICES AT THE GOODARD INSTITUTE FOR SPACE STUDIES (GISS). Key points: 1. Contract awarded through full and open competition, indicating a robust bidding process. 2. The contract type, Cost Plus Award Fee, incentivizes performance but requires careful oversight. 3. Duration of 1825 days (5 years) suggests a long-term need for these mission support services. 4. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 541710 points to significant Research and Development activity. 5. Geographic location in New York may indicate a concentration of specialized research facilities. 6. No small business set-aside was utilized, suggesting the primary contractor is not a small business.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging without more detailed cost breakdowns and performance metrics. The Cost Plus Award Fee structure means the final cost could vary based on performance. However, the duration and the nature of R&D services suggest a significant investment. Comparing it to similar mission support contracts for research institutions would provide better context on whether the pricing is competitive for the services rendered.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources,' which implies that while the competition was open, specific sources may have been excluded for particular reasons. With 7 bidders, the competition level appears healthy, which should theoretically lead to better price discovery and value for the government. The exclusion of sources warrants further investigation to understand its impact on the competitive landscape.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive bidding process with multiple bidders generally benefits taxpayers by driving down costs and ensuring the government receives the best value for its investment.

Public Impact

Benefits researchers and scientists at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) by providing essential mission support. Ensures the continuity of critical research and development activities in physical, engineering, and life sciences. Supports scientific advancement and technological innovation within NASA's mission. The contract's impact is primarily concentrated in New York, where GISS is located.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Positive Signals

Sector Analysis

The contract falls within the Research and Development sector, specifically NAICS code 541710, which covers R&D in physical, engineering, and life sciences. This sector is characterized by innovation, specialized expertise, and often long-term projects. Spending in this area is crucial for technological advancement and scientific discovery. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve looking at other NASA or federal agency contracts for similar research support services at scientific institutions.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). This suggests that the primary contractor, Sigma Space Partners, LLC, is likely a larger entity, or that the scope of work was deemed unsuitable for a small business set-aside. Further analysis would be needed to determine if subcontracting opportunities exist for small businesses within this contract's performance.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). As a Cost Plus Award Fee contract, NASA's contracting officers and technical monitors would be responsible for evaluating performance against award criteria and approving fee payments. Transparency would depend on NASA's internal reporting and public disclosure policies regarding contract performance and expenditures. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of suspected fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Risk Flags

Tags

research-and-development, nasa, new-york, definitive-contract, large-contract, full-and-open-competition, cost-plus-award-fee, mission-support, science, federal-agency

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $13.8 million to SIGMA SPACE PARTNERS, LLC. MISSION SUPPORT SERVICES AT THE GOODARD INSTITUTE FOR SPACE STUDIES (GISS).

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is SIGMA SPACE PARTNERS, 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 $13.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2006-07-01. End: 2011-06-30.

What is the track record of Sigma Space Partners, LLC with federal contracts, particularly with NASA?

A comprehensive review of Sigma Space Partners, LLC's federal contract history would be necessary to assess their track record. This would involve examining past performance on similar contracts, including their success in meeting cost, schedule, and performance requirements. Specifically, looking at their history with NASA would reveal their experience with the agency's unique research and development needs and contracting procedures. Data on contract awards, modifications, and any past performance issues or disputes would provide insight into their reliability and capability as a contractor. Without specific historical data on this contractor, it's difficult to definitively assess their track record beyond the information provided for this single contract.

How does the awarded amount of $13.8 million compare to similar mission support contracts for R&D institutions?

Comparing the $13.8 million contract value requires context regarding the scope, duration, and specific services provided. Mission support for R&D institutions can vary widely, encompassing everything from administrative functions to highly specialized technical support. To benchmark this contract, one would need to identify similar contracts awarded by NASA or other federal agencies to comparable research institutes over a similar timeframe (e.g., 2006-2011). Factors such as the number of personnel supported, the complexity of research, and the geographic location can influence costs. A preliminary assessment suggests that $13.8 million over five years for mission support at a research institute is a substantial but not necessarily outlier amount, especially if it includes significant technical or scientific support functions.

What are the primary risks associated with a Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract structure for R&D services?

The primary risks associated with a CPAF contract for R&D services revolve around cost control and performance measurement. For the government, there's a risk that costs could escalate beyond initial projections, as the contractor is reimbursed for allowable costs. The 'award fee' component, while intended to incentivize superior performance, can be subjective and may lead to disputes if performance metrics are not clearly defined or if the evaluation process is perceived as unfair. Contractors may focus on achieving award fee targets rather than the most critical R&D objectives if not carefully managed. Effective oversight by the government is crucial to mitigate these risks, ensuring that costs are reasonable and that award fees are tied to demonstrable, mission-critical achievements.

How effective is the 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' method in ensuring value for taxpayers?

The effectiveness of 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' in ensuring value for taxpayers is nuanced. Ideally, full and open competition maximizes the pool of potential bidders, fostering robust price discovery and leading to competitive pricing. However, the 'exclusion of sources' clause introduces a caveat. If sources are excluded for legitimate, well-documented reasons (e.g., security concerns, lack of capability), the competition might still yield good value. But if sources are excluded arbitrarily or without clear justification, it could limit competition, potentially leading to higher prices and reduced value for taxpayers. The key lies in the transparency and justification behind any source exclusions. In this case, with 7 bidders, the exclusion did not appear to stifle competition significantly.

What are the historical spending patterns for mission support services at NASA's GISS or similar facilities?

Analyzing historical spending patterns for mission support services at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) or comparable facilities would provide crucial context for this $13.8 million contract. This would involve examining previous contracts for GISS, looking at their value, duration, and the types of services procured. Comparing this data to spending at other NASA centers or similar federal research institutions would reveal trends in R&D support costs. Understanding whether spending has increased, decreased, or remained stable over time, and the factors driving these changes (e.g., inflation, program expansion, technological shifts), is essential for assessing the current contract's value and appropriateness within a broader fiscal context.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical ServicesScientific Research and Development ServicesResearch and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences

Product/Service Code: RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENTDEFENSE (OTHER) R&D

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 7

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE (R)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 4801 FORBES BLVD, LANHAM, MD, 20706

Business Categories: Category Business, Hispanic American Owned Business, Minority Owned Business, Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $14,386,091

Exercised Options: $14,386,091

Current Obligation: $13,810,295

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Timeline

Start Date: 2006-07-01

Current End Date: 2011-06-30

Potential End Date: 2011-06-30 00:00:00

Last Modified: 2017-10-05

Other National Aeronautics and Space Administration Contracts

View all National Aeronautics and Space Administration contracts →

Explore Related Government Spending