NASA's $369M engineering services contract with INUTEQ, LLC, primarily supporting GSFC missions, ran from 2015-2019
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $368,892,580 ($368.9M)
Contractor: Inuteq, LLC
Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Start Date: 2015-01-01
End Date: 2019-12-31
Contract Duration: 1,825 days
Daily Burn Rate: $202.1K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES
Number of Offers Received: 4
Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE
Sector: Other
Official Description: IGF::OT::IGF THE MAJORITY OF WORK UNDER THIS CONTRACT SHALL BE IN SUPPORT OF MISSIONS OF THE GSFC. IN ADDITION, THERE WILL BE SOME WORK THAT WILL BE IN SUPPORT OF GSFC OR OTHER NASA MISSIONS AT OTHER NASA CENTERS OR NASA HEADQUARTERS. IN SUPPORT OF THESE ACTIVITIES, IT IS ANTICIPATED THAT A SMALL NUMBER OF CONTRACTOR PERSONNEL MAY BE RESIDENT AT SUCH FACILITIES OUTSIDE OF THE METRO WASHINGTON DC AREA. IN ORDER TO SUPPORT THESE MISSIONS AND THE ACCOUNTING OFFICE, THE FOLLOWING PROJECT PLANNING AND CONTROL AND ASSOCIATED FUNCTIONS WILL BE PERFORMED UNDER THIS CONTRACT: 1. GENERAL BUSINESS 2. PLANNING AND SCHEDULING/EARNED VALUE MANAGEMENT 3. DOCUMENTATION MANAGEMENT 4. CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT 5. HIGHLY SPECIALIZED INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 6. GENERAL ACCOUNTING.
Place of Performance
Location: GREENBELT, PRINCE GEORGES County, MARYLAND, 20771
State: Maryland Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $368.9 million to INUTEQ, LLC for work described as: IGF::OT::IGF THE MAJORITY OF WORK UNDER THIS CONTRACT SHALL BE IN SUPPORT OF MISSIONS OF THE GSFC. IN ADDITION, THERE WILL BE SOME WORK THAT WILL BE IN SUPPORT OF GSFC OR OTHER NASA MISSIONS AT OTHER NASA CENTERS OR NASA HEADQUARTERS. IN SUPPORT OF THESE ACTIVITIES, IT IS ANTICIP… Key points: 1. The contract focused on essential mission support functions including project planning, IT, and general accounting. 2. A significant portion of the work was dedicated to supporting the Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC). 3. The contract utilized a Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) payment structure, incentivizing performance. 4. The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating a broad market search. 5. The duration of the contract was 5 years, aligning with typical long-term support needs. 6. The primary place of performance was Maryland, with potential for limited personnel at other NASA centers.
Value Assessment
Rating: fair
The contract's total value was approximately $369 million over five years. Without specific benchmarks for similar engineering support services at NASA centers, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging. The CPAF structure suggests an attempt to link contractor performance to financial incentives, which can be a positive indicator if well-managed. However, the lack of detailed performance metrics makes it difficult to definitively assess if the pricing was competitive or if the services delivered represented optimal value.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: full-and-open
The contract was awarded through full and open competition after exclusion of sources, suggesting that NASA sought proposals from a wide range of qualified vendors. The presence of four bidders indicates a reasonable level of competition for this type of specialized engineering support. This competitive process is generally expected to drive more favorable pricing and service offerings for the government.
Taxpayer Impact: A competitive award process helps ensure that taxpayer dollars are used efficiently by fostering a market-driven price discovery mechanism.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiaries were NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) and its various missions, ensuring critical operational support. Services delivered included essential functions like project planning, earned value management, documentation, configuration management, IT support, and general accounting. The geographic impact was primarily centered in Maryland, with potential for limited contractor personnel presence at other NASA facilities. The contract supported specialized IT functions and general business operations crucial for mission success.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- The Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure can lead to cost overruns if award criteria are not strictly defined and monitored.
- Assessing the true value for money is difficult without detailed performance data and comparisons to similar contracts.
- The broad scope of services, including IT and general accounting, might dilute focus on core engineering competencies.
Positive Signals
- Awarded through full and open competition, indicating a robust market search.
- The CPAF structure provides an incentive for the contractor to meet or exceed performance objectives.
- The contract duration of five years allowed for stability and continuity of essential support services.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the Engineering Services sector (NAICS 541330), a critical area for government agencies like NASA that rely on specialized technical expertise for mission execution. The market for such services is competitive, with numerous firms offering a range of capabilities. NASA's spending in this area is substantial, reflecting the complexity and scale of its research, development, and operational activities. Benchmarking this contract's value against other similar NASA engineering support contracts would provide further insight into its cost-effectiveness.
Small Business Impact
The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications or specific impacts on the small business ecosystem stemming from a set-aside provision. The prime contractor, INUTEQ, LLC, would have been responsible for fulfilling the contract requirements, and any subcontracting decisions would have been at their discretion, not driven by a small business set-aside requirement.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would have been managed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). As a Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract, performance monitoring and evaluation against defined criteria would be crucial for determining award fees. Transparency would be facilitated through contract reporting requirements. Specific Inspector General (IG) jurisdiction would depend on the nature of any potential issues investigated, but NASA's Office of Inspector General typically oversees agency contracts.
Related Government Programs
- NASA Mission Support Contracts
- Engineering and Technical Services
- Information Technology Services
- Project Management Services
- Goddard Space Flight Center Operations
Risk Flags
- Contract type (CPAF) requires careful monitoring to ensure cost control.
- Scope of work includes diverse functions (IT, accounting, planning) which may present management complexity.
- Potential for personnel to be resident at facilities outside the primary performance location could introduce logistical challenges.
Tags
engineering-services, nasa, maryland, cost-plus-award-fee, large-contract, full-and-open-competition, mission-support, it-services, project-management, gsfc
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $368.9 million to INUTEQ, LLC. IGF::OT::IGF THE MAJORITY OF WORK UNDER THIS CONTRACT SHALL BE IN SUPPORT OF MISSIONS OF THE GSFC. IN ADDITION, THERE WILL BE SOME WORK THAT WILL BE IN SUPPORT OF GSFC OR OTHER NASA MISSIONS AT OTHER NASA CENTERS OR NASA HEADQUARTERS. IN SUPPORT OF THESE ACTIVITIES, IT IS ANTICIPATED THAT A SMALL NUMBER OF CONTRACTOR PERSONNEL MAY BE RESIDENT AT SUCH FACILITIES OUTSIDE OF THE METRO WASHINGTON DC AREA. IN ORDER TO SUPPORT THESE MISSIONS AND THE ACCOUNTING OFFICE, THE FOLLOWING PROJECT PLANNING AN
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is INUTEQ, 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 $368.9 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2015-01-01. End: 2019-12-31.
What was the contractor's track record prior to this award?
Information regarding INUTEQ, LLC's specific track record prior to this $369 million NASA contract is not detailed in the provided data. Generally, for large federal contracts, agencies conduct pre-award assessments that include reviewing a contractor's past performance, financial stability, and technical capabilities. This would typically involve examining previous contracts, client references, and any performance evaluations. Without access to NASA's source selection documentation or INUTEQ's broader contract history, a comprehensive assessment of their prior performance is not possible based solely on the provided summary data.
How does the total contract value compare to similar engineering services contracts at NASA?
The total contract value of approximately $369 million over five years, averaging around $74 million annually, is substantial for engineering services. NASA frequently awards large contracts for mission support, research, and development. To benchmark this value, one would need to compare it against other definitive contracts for similar engineering and technical support services awarded to large businesses by NASA centers like Goddard, Johnson, or Marshall Space Flight Center during the same period (2015-2019). Factors such as scope of work, required expertise, and contract type (e.g., cost-plus vs. fixed-price) would need to be considered for a meaningful comparison.
What were the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to determine award fees?
The provided data specifies the contract type as Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF), indicating that performance-based award fees were a component. However, the specific Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) or criteria used to determine these award fees are not detailed. Typically, for engineering support contracts, KPIs might include metrics related to schedule adherence, cost control, technical quality of deliverables, innovation, responsiveness to task orders, and overall customer satisfaction. NASA would have established a detailed performance evaluation plan outlining these metrics and their weighting for INUTEQ, LLC.
What was the historical spending pattern for this type of service at NASA prior to this contract?
The provided data does not include historical spending patterns for engineering services at NASA prior to this contract. To analyze historical spending, one would need to access federal procurement databases (like USASpending.gov or FPDS) and query for similar NAICS codes (e.g., 541330) and contract types awarded by NASA over several preceding fiscal years. This analysis would reveal trends in contract values, number of awards, and dominant contractors, providing context for the scale and nature of NASA's investment in engineering support services.
Were there any significant challenges or risks identified during contract performance?
The provided summary data does not explicitly detail any significant challenges or risks encountered during the performance of this contract. Contract performance data, including any identified risks, challenges, or contractor performance issues, is typically documented in internal agency performance evaluations, contract close-out reports, or potentially in Inspector General reports if issues were severe enough to warrant investigation. Without access to these more detailed records, it's impossible to ascertain specific performance-related challenges or risks beyond general considerations inherent in large, complex service contracts.
How did the 'exclusion of sources' clause in 'full and open competition' affect the bidding process?
The phrase 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' is somewhat contradictory and requires clarification. Typically, 'full and open competition' means all responsible sources are permitted to submit an offer. 'Exclusion of sources' implies that certain potential sources were deliberately not considered. If this refers to a FAR 6.302 justification (e.g., sole source, limited competition), it would contradict 'full and open.' However, it might also refer to a pre-qualification process where only certain types of firms were initially solicited, but then the competition was opened broadly among those qualified. Assuming it means standard full and open competition, it implies a broad solicitation, and the 'exclusion of sources' might refer to specific regulatory exclusions (e.g., entities debarred or suspended) rather than a limitation on the pool of eligible bidders.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services › Engineering Services
Product/Service Code: SUPPORT SVCS (PROF, ADMIN, MGMT) › PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES
Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE
Solicitation ID: NNG13439013R
Offers Received: 4
Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE (R)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Address: 7000 MUIRKIRK MEADOWS DR STE 100, BELTSVILLE, MD, 20705
Business Categories: 8(a) Program Participant, Alaskan Native Corporation Owned Firm, Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Limited Liability Corporation, Minority Owned Business, Other Minority Owned Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $426,800,000
Exercised Options: $426,800,000
Current Obligation: $368,892,580
Actual Outlays: $33,301,015
Subaward Activity
Number of Subawards: 39
Total Subaward Amount: $63,845,597
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED
Cost or Pricing Data: NO
Timeline
Start Date: 2015-01-01
Current End Date: 2019-12-31
Potential End Date: 2019-12-31 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2024-09-03
More Contracts from Inuteq, LLC
- , High Performance Computing Integrated Technical Services Restricted in Support of the High Performance Computing Mondernization Program Office — $108.8M (Department of Defense)
- Research Facilities and Engineering Support Services — $85.8M (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
- - Office of Worker's Compensation Programs(owcp)information Technology Services (oits), U.S. Department of Labor Headquarters Agency, Washington, D.C — $79.6M (Department of Labor)
- Idiq Procurement Services Task Order Under Nasa Advanced Computing Services (nacs) Contract — $41.5M (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
- Idiq Procurement Task Order Under the Nasa Advanced Computing Services (nacs) Contract — $36.2M (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 →