NASA's Sounding Rocket Program Operations Contract II awarded to Peraton Inc. for $278M over 6 years
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $278,076,159 ($278.1M)
Contractor: Peraton Inc.
Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Start Date: 2010-10-16
End Date: 2016-10-15
Contract Duration: 2,191 days
Daily Burn Rate: $126.9K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Number of Offers Received: 2
Pricing Type: COST PLUS INCENTIVE FEE
Sector: Other
Official Description: NASA SOUNDING ROCKET OPERATIONS CONTRACT II THE NASA SOUNDING ROCKET OPERATIONS CONTRACT II (NSROC II) SERVES AS THE MECHANISM FOR THE COMMERCIAL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NASA SOUNDING ROCKET PROGRAM (NSRP). THE PROGRAM UTILIZES EXPENDABLE SUB-ORBITAL ROCKETS TO CONDUCT A HOST OF SCIENTIFIC MISSIONS FOR THE STUDY OF NEAR EARTH AND SPACE ENVIRONMENTS AND TO ADVANCE NEW TECHNOLOGIES. INDIVIDUAL MISSION REQUIREMENTS HAVE HISTORICALLY INVOLVED THE USE OF SINGLE AND MULTI-STAGE SUB-ORBITAL VEHICLES LIFTING PAYLOADS WITH WEIGHTS RANGING FROM 30 POUNDS TO 1500 POUNDS OR MORE TO ALTITUDES RANGING FROM 80 TO 2000 KILOMETERS OR MORE. THE TIME REQUIRED TO CONDUCT A SPECIFIC MISSION FROM PAYLOAD DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT THROUGH LAUNCH WILL VARY SUBSTANTIALLY AND MAY RANGE FROM A FEW MONTHS TO TWO YEARS OR LONGER. MOST OF THESE MISSIONS ARE CONDUCTED FROM ESTABLISHED LAUNCH RANGES, WHILE SOME ARE CONDUCTED AS MOBILE LAUNCH CAMPAIGNS FROM RANGES THAT HAVE BEEN TEMPORARILY ESTABLISHED.
Place of Performance
Location: WALLOPS ISLAND, ACCOMACK County, VIRGINIA, 23337
State: Virginia Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $278.1 million to PERATON INC. for work described as: NASA SOUNDING ROCKET OPERATIONS CONTRACT II THE NASA SOUNDING ROCKET OPERATIONS CONTRACT II (NSROC II) SERVES AS THE MECHANISM FOR THE COMMERCIAL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NASA SOUNDING ROCKET PROGRAM (NSRP). THE PROGRAM UTILIZES EXPENDABLE SUB-ORBITAL ROCKETS TO CONDUCT A HOST OF S… Key points: 1. The contract supports NASA's Sounding Rocket Program, utilizing expendable rockets for scientific missions and technology advancement. 2. Payloads range from 30 to 1500+ pounds, reaching altitudes of 80 to 2000+ kilometers. 3. Mission timelines vary significantly, from a few months to two years from design to launch. 4. The contract type is Cost Plus Incentive Fee, indicating performance-based incentives for the contractor. 5. This contract represents a significant investment in sub-orbital space research and development. 6. The program's flexibility allows for diverse scientific investigations and technological testing.
Value Assessment
Rating: good
The total award of $278 million over six years for the NASA Sounding Rocket Operations Contract II appears reasonable given the scope of services. While specific per-unit cost benchmarks are not readily available for such specialized operations, the contract's duration and the complexity of supporting diverse scientific missions suggest a fair allocation of resources. Benchmarking against similar large-scale aerospace support contracts would provide further context, but the pricing seems aligned with the technical demands and operational requirements.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: full-and-open
The contract was awarded under full and open competition, suggesting that multiple qualified vendors had the opportunity to bid. This competitive process is designed to foster price discovery and ensure that NASA receives the best value. The number of bidders is not specified, but the full and open nature implies a robust selection process.
Taxpayer Impact: A full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by driving down costs through market forces and encouraging innovation among potential contractors.
Public Impact
Scientists and researchers benefit from access to reliable sounding rocket services for their experiments. The contract enables the delivery of critical scientific data on near-Earth and space environments. Advancements in new technologies are facilitated through experimental payloads launched via these rockets. The program supports a specialized workforce in aerospace engineering, operations, and scientific research. Geographic impact is primarily centered around NASA launch facilities and research institutions.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Potential for cost overruns inherent in Cost Plus Incentive Fee contracts if not managed tightly.
- Dependence on a single contractor for critical sounding rocket operations could pose a risk if performance falters.
Positive Signals
- Full and open competition suggests a strong market evaluation and potential for competitive pricing.
- The long-term nature of the contract provides stability for program operations and planning.
- The Cost Plus Incentive Fee structure incentivizes contractor performance and efficiency.
Sector Analysis
The aerospace industry, particularly the segment focused on launch services and scientific instrumentation, is characterized by high technical barriers to entry and significant R&D investment. NASA's Sounding Rocket Program operates within this specialized sector, providing essential capabilities for scientific research that cannot be met by larger orbital missions. Comparable spending benchmarks would likely be found in contracts for satellite launch services or specialized aerospace engineering support, though sounding rockets represent a distinct niche.
Small Business Impact
The provided data does not indicate any specific small business set-asides or subcontracting requirements for this contract. Analysis of small business participation would require further investigation into the contract's specific clauses and the prime contractor's subcontracting plan.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the NASA contracting officer and program office responsible for the Sounding Rocket Program. Accountability measures are embedded within the Cost Plus Incentive Fee structure, which links contractor profit to performance metrics. Transparency is generally maintained through contract awards databases and public reporting, though specific operational details may be sensitive.
Related Government Programs
- NASA Sounding Rocket Program
- Expendable Launch Vehicle Programs
- Aerospace Research and Development Contracts
- Scientific Payload Development
Risk Flags
- Cost Plus Incentive Fee contract type requires careful monitoring of performance metrics to ensure value.
- Dependence on a single contractor for critical operations necessitates robust performance management.
- Variability in mission requirements and timelines can complicate cost and schedule forecasting.
Tags
nasa, sounding-rocket, aerospace, engineering-services, cost-plus-incentive-fee, full-and-open-competition, definitive-contract, peraton-inc, virginia, science-and-research, technology-development
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $278.1 million to PERATON INC.. NASA SOUNDING ROCKET OPERATIONS CONTRACT II THE NASA SOUNDING ROCKET OPERATIONS CONTRACT II (NSROC II) SERVES AS THE MECHANISM FOR THE COMMERCIAL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NASA SOUNDING ROCKET PROGRAM (NSRP). THE PROGRAM UTILIZES EXPENDABLE SUB-ORBITAL ROCKETS TO CONDUCT A HOST OF SCIENTIFIC MISSIONS FOR THE STUDY OF NEAR EARTH AND SPACE ENVIRONMENTS AND TO ADVANCE NEW TECHNOLOGIES. INDIVIDUAL MISSION REQUIREMENTS HAVE HISTORICALLY INVOLVED THE USE OF SINGLE AND MULTI-STAGE SUB-ORBITAL VEHICLES LI
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is PERATON 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 $278.1 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2010-10-16. End: 2016-10-15.
What is the historical spending trend for NASA's Sounding Rocket Program Operations?
Historical spending data for NASA's Sounding Rocket Program Operations prior to the NSROC II contract would provide valuable context for assessing the current award. Analyzing previous contract values, durations, and the number of competitive actions can reveal trends in program funding and contractor engagement. For instance, understanding if previous contracts were also awarded under full and open competition or if there were periods of sole-source awards can indicate shifts in procurement strategy. Furthermore, examining the inflation-adjusted costs of prior operations could help determine if the $278 million for NSROC II represents an increase, decrease, or stable level of investment in this capability. Without specific historical data points, it is challenging to definitively assess the long-term financial trajectory of the program.
How does Peraton Inc.'s performance on similar contracts compare to the requirements of NSROC II?
Assessing Peraton Inc.'s track record on similar aerospace operations and launch support contracts is crucial for evaluating their suitability for NSROC II. Information on their past performance, including on-time delivery, adherence to budget, technical execution, and safety records, would provide insights into their capabilities. Specifically, experience with expendable sub-orbital rockets, payload integration, and mission planning at the scales required by NASA is highly relevant. A review of past performance evaluations, any contract disputes, or awards for exceptional performance on comparable projects would inform the assessment of their reliability and expertise. This due diligence helps mitigate risks associated with contractor performance and ensures the successful execution of NASA's scientific objectives.
What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) and incentive structures within the Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) for NSROC II?
The Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) structure for the NSROC II contract implies that Peraton Inc.'s final profit is tied to achieving specific performance targets. Key performance indicators (KPIs) likely include metrics related to mission success rates, on-time launch schedules, cost control within target ranges, and adherence to technical specifications for payload delivery and altitude achievement. The incentive structure would define how deviations from target costs and performance levels impact the contractor's fee. Understanding these KPIs and the associated fee adjustments is essential for evaluating how effectively the contract incentivizes efficiency and mission success. Without the specific details of the CPIF targets and fee curves, a precise assessment of the value derived from these incentives is limited.
What is the estimated cost per launch or per kilogram of payload delivered under this contract?
Calculating a precise cost per launch or per kilogram of payload under the NSROC II contract is complex due to the variable nature of sounding rocket missions. The contract covers a wide range of payload weights (30-1500+ lbs) and altitudes (80-2000+ km), with varying mission complexities and durations. A simple division of the total contract value by the number of launches would not accurately reflect the cost-effectiveness, as each mission has unique requirements. To establish a meaningful benchmark, one would need to analyze the costs associated with different mission profiles (e.g., small payload to low altitude vs. large payload to high altitude) and compare these to industry standards for similar sounding rocket services. The Cost Plus Incentive Fee structure also means the final cost can vary based on performance.
How does the scope of NSROC II compare to other NASA sounding rocket contracts or similar government programs?
Comparing the scope of NSROC II to other NASA sounding rocket contracts or similar government programs provides context for its scale and importance. NASA has a long history of utilizing sounding rockets, and understanding how NSROC II's $278 million value and six-year duration align with previous or concurrent programs is informative. For instance, if previous contracts were smaller in value or shorter in duration, it might indicate an expansion of the program or increased operational tempo. Similarly, comparing it to sounding rocket programs managed by other agencies (e.g., DoD, NOAA) or international space agencies can highlight NASA's specific approach and investment level in this area. The breadth of scientific missions supported and the range of technical capabilities offered by NSROC II are key factors in this comparative analysis.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services › Engineering Services
Product/Service Code: RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT › Space R&D Services
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE
Solicitation ID: NNG09231373R
Offers Received: 2
Pricing Type: COST PLUS INCENTIVE FEE (V)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Parent Company: Veritas Capital Fund Management, L.L.C.
Address: 12975 WORLDGATE DR STE 7322, HERNDON, VA, 20170
Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $310,000,000
Exercised Options: $310,000,000
Current Obligation: $278,076,159
Actual Outlays: $42,564
Subaward Activity
Number of Subawards: 32
Total Subaward Amount: $5,163,902
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED
Cost or Pricing Data: YES
Timeline
Start Date: 2010-10-16
Current End Date: 2016-10-15
Potential End Date: 2016-10-15 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2023-09-14
More Contracts from Peraton Inc.
- 200107!000034!5700!GZ80 !smc/Pks !F0470101C0001 !A!N!*!Y! !20001103!20061031!052819732!052819732!001216845!n!itt Industries, Inc , Systems !4410 E Fountain Blvd !colorado Sprin !co!80916!16000!041!08!colorado Springs !EL Paso !colorado !+000016429445!n!n!000000000000!ac26!rdte/Missile and Space Systems-Mgmt Support !A2 !missile and Space Systems !3000!NOT Discernable or Classified !541710!*!*!3! ! ! !*!*!*!B!*!*!B! !A !Y!R!2!003!B! !A!N!Z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !c!c!a!a!000!a!c!n! ! ! !Y! ! !0001! — $1.7B (Department of Defense)
- THE Exploration and Space Communications Projects Division (ESC) IS a National Resource Located AT Goddard Space Flight Center (gsfc) Which Enables Scientific Discovery and Space Exploration by Providing Innovative and Mission-Effective Space Communications and Navigation Solutions to a Large Community of Diverse Customers. ESC Manages Operational Geostationary Communications Relay Satellites and Ground Systems for the Space Communications and Navigation (scan) Program AT Nasa Headquarters. Today, Scan Network Systems Consist of the Space Network (SN), the Near Earth Network (NEN), and the Deep Space Network (DSN). the Day-To-Day Management of These Three Networks IS Currently NOT Fully Consistent. IT IS the Intention of the Government to Unify the SN and NEN Where Practicable Under This Contract Using Integrated, Common Management Practices and Network Solutions — $1.5B (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
- Nasa Goddard Space Flight Center's (gsfc) Goal for the Space Communications Networks Services Contract (scns) IS to Enable Mission Success for Every Customer Using Scns Services. KEY Objectives of the Scns Contract ARE to Decrease Cost and Maintain or Improve Operational Efficiency and Reliability, While Maintaining an Acceptable Level of Risk and Providing for Safe Operation of the Missions. the Contractor Shall Implement a Safety, Health, and Mission Assurance Program That Provides a Safe and Healthy Work Environment, Minimizes Program Risk, and Maximizes Nasa Mission Success. the Contractor Shall BE Responsible and Accountable for Achieving the Required Results. Core Requirement Functions, Such AS Configuration Management, Quality Assurance, ETC. ARE Required to Support Idiq Task Orders. the Space Network (SN) IS Comprised of a Fleet of On-Orbit Tracking and Data Relay Satellites (tdrs) and Associated Ground Systems That Provide Telecommunications Services. the Nature of the SN Architecture, I.E., Extremely Large Capital Investment, Contractor Operated Facilities, Continuous 24X7 Requirements, ETC., Lends Itself to a Core Requirements Approach. the Ground Network (GN) Consists of an Orbital Tracking Network and the Satellite Laser Ranging Network. the Nature of the Ground Network Architecture, I.E., Diverse MIX of Commercial and Government Assets, Evolving Geographic and Technical Customer Requirements, and Legacy Systems, ETC. Lends Itself to an Idiq Approach. Other Activities, I.E., Very Long Baseline Interferometry Network Operations and Maintenance (O&M), Electronic System Test Laboratory, Requirements Development, Hardware and Software Development, ETC. ARE Best Suited to an Idiq Approach in the Resource-Constrained Environment That Nasa Operates in — $1.2B (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
- Operational Planning Implementation and Assessment Services (opias) Base Award — $800.8M (General Services Administration)
- Sitec 3 EOM Provides Ussocom With O&M Services to Maintain Netops, Maintain Systems & Network Infrastructure, Provide END User & Common Device Support, Provide Configuration, Change, License, & Asset Mgmt. Conduct Training and Perform Imacs Services — $651.0M (General Services 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 →