NASA's $95.4M IGF Range Operations Contract Bridge (ROC-B) for launch and support services awarded to LJT & Associates, Inc
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $95,400,701 ($95.4M)
Contractor: LJT & Associates, Inc
Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Start Date: 2016-09-22
End Date: 2019-08-09
Contract Duration: 1,051 days
Daily Burn Rate: $90.8K/day
Competition Type: NOT COMPETED
Number of Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE
Sector: Other
Official Description: IGF::OT::IGF RANGE OPERATIONS CONTRACT BRIDGE (ROC-B) THIS CONTRACT PROVIDES SERVICES FOR DEPLOYMENT (LAUNCH) AND/OR SUPPORT OF OPERATIONAL AND TEST CARRIER VEHICLES INCLUDING ROCKETS, AIRCRAFT, EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEHICLES (ELVS), SATELLITES, BALLOONS, UNINHABITED AERIAL VEHICLES (UAVS) AND OTHER SERVICES.
Place of Performance
Location: WALLOPS ISLAND, ACCOMACK County, VIRGINIA, 23337
State: Virginia Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $95.4 million to LJT & ASSOCIATES, INC for work described as: IGF::OT::IGF RANGE OPERATIONS CONTRACT BRIDGE (ROC-B) THIS CONTRACT PROVIDES SERVICES FOR DEPLOYMENT (LAUNCH) AND/OR SUPPORT OF OPERATIONAL AND TEST CARRIER VEHICLES INCLUDING ROCKETS, AIRCRAFT, EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEHICLES (ELVS), SATELLITES, BALLOONS, UNINHABITED AERIAL VEHICLES … Key points: 1. The contract's broad scope covers deployment and support for a wide array of vehicles, including rockets, aircraft, and satellites. 2. Awarded as a definitive contract, it signifies a commitment to a specific service provider for a defined period. 3. The 'Not Competed' status raises questions about the procurement process and potential missed opportunities for competitive pricing. 4. The contract's duration of over 1000 days suggests a long-term need for these specialized operational and test services. 5. The 'Cost Plus Fixed Fee' pricing structure can incentivize cost overruns if not carefully managed. 6. The primary agency and servicing agency are both NASA, indicating an internal requirement for these launch and support capabilities.
Value Assessment
Rating: questionable
Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging without more detailed cost breakdowns and comparisons to similar sole-source procurements. The 'Cost Plus Fixed Fee' (CPFF) structure, while common for complex or uncertain scope work, carries inherent risks of cost escalation. Without competitive bidding, it's difficult to ascertain if the fixed fee adequately reflects the contractor's risk and effort, or if the overall cost represents a fair market value. Further analysis would require comparing the contractor's overhead rates, labor costs, and profit margins to industry standards for similar services.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: sole-source
This contract was awarded under a sole-source procurement, meaning it was not openly competed. This typically occurs when only one responsible source is available or when a compelling justification exists for excluding competition. The lack of competition means that NASA did not benefit from the price discovery and innovation that typically arises from multiple bidders vying for a contract. This approach can sometimes be justified for highly specialized services or urgent needs, but it limits the government's ability to secure the best possible pricing and terms.
Taxpayer Impact: The absence of competition means taxpayers may not have received the most cost-effective solution. Without a bidding process, there is less pressure on the contractor to offer competitive pricing, potentially leading to higher overall expenditures.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiaries are NASA's space exploration and research programs, which rely on these services for vehicle deployment and operational support. Services delivered include launch, deployment, and ongoing support for various aerospace assets, crucial for mission success. The geographic impact is likely concentrated around NASA's launch and testing facilities, though the ultimate reach extends to the missions supported. The contract supports a specialized workforce skilled in aerospace operations, launch services, and vehicle support.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Sole-source award limits price competition, potentially increasing costs for taxpayers.
- Cost Plus Fixed Fee structure can lead to cost overruns if not rigorously managed.
- Lack of transparency in the sole-source justification makes it difficult to assess necessity.
- Limited public information on performance metrics and contractor success.
- Contract duration is substantial, requiring sustained oversight.
Positive Signals
- Contract addresses critical NASA operational needs for launch and support services.
- Definitive contract provides a stable framework for essential services.
- Awarded to a single entity, potentially allowing for specialized expertise and streamlined execution.
- Contract duration suggests a long-term strategic partnership for critical functions.
Sector Analysis
The aerospace and defense sector is characterized by high-value, complex contracts often involving specialized technologies and stringent performance requirements. NASA's spending in this area supports its core mission of space exploration, scientific research, and aeronautics development. Contracts like ROC-B are essential for maintaining the infrastructure and capabilities needed for successful space missions. Benchmarking this contract's value is difficult without specific cost data, but it falls within the typical range for specialized launch and support services within the federal government's aerospace procurement landscape.
Small Business Impact
This contract does not appear to have a small business set-aside component, as indicated by 'ss: false' and 'sb: false'. The prime contractor, LJT & Associates, Inc., is not explicitly identified as a small business in the provided data. Therefore, the direct impact on small business set-asides is minimal. However, the potential for subcontracting opportunities with small businesses exists, depending on the prime contractor's subcontracting plan and the nature of the services required. Without further information on subcontracting goals or performance, the overall impact on the small business ecosystem remains unclear.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under NASA's contracting officers and program managers. As a definitive contract, there are established procedures for monitoring performance, costs, and compliance. The 'Cost Plus Fixed Fee' structure necessitates close scrutiny of incurred costs to ensure they align with the contract's objectives and the fixed fee. Transparency regarding performance metrics and cost reporting would be key to effective oversight. The absence of a specific Inspector General (IG) jurisdiction mentioned in the data means oversight might be handled internally by NASA's own audit and inspection functions.
Related Government Programs
- NASA Launch Services Program
- Space Communications and Navigation (SCaN) Program
- NASA Expendable Launch Vehicle Services
- NASA Ground Systems Development and Operations
Risk Flags
- Sole-source award
- Cost Plus Fixed Fee structure
- Lack of competitive bidding
- Limited transparency on justification
Tags
nasa, space-exploration, launch-services, aerospace, definitive-contract, sole-source, cost-plus-fixed-fee, virginia, operations-support, test-vehicles, national-aeronautics-and-space-administration
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $95.4 million to LJT & ASSOCIATES, INC. IGF::OT::IGF RANGE OPERATIONS CONTRACT BRIDGE (ROC-B) THIS CONTRACT PROVIDES SERVICES FOR DEPLOYMENT (LAUNCH) AND/OR SUPPORT OF OPERATIONAL AND TEST CARRIER VEHICLES INCLUDING ROCKETS, AIRCRAFT, EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEHICLES (ELVS), SATELLITES, BALLOONS, UNINHABITED AERIAL VEHICLES (UAVS) AND OTHER SERVICES.
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is LJT & ASSOCIATES, 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 $95.4 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2016-09-22. End: 2019-08-09.
What is the specific justification for awarding this contract on a sole-source basis?
The provided data indicates the contract was 'NOT COMPETED,' which implies a sole-source award. The specific justification for this sole-source determination is not detailed in the provided data. Typically, sole-source awards are justified under circumstances such as the existence of only one responsible source, urgent and compelling needs where competition is impractical, or when a specific technology or capability is only available from a single entity. Without NASA's official justification document (e.g., a Justification for Other Than Full and Open Competition - JOFOC), it is impossible to definitively state the reason. This lack of transparency is a common concern with sole-source procurements, as it limits the public's ability to understand why competitive processes were bypassed.
How does the 'Cost Plus Fixed Fee' (CPFF) structure compare to other contract types for similar services?
The 'Cost Plus Fixed Fee' (CPFF) structure is often used when the scope of work is not precisely defined or involves a high degree of uncertainty, as might be the case with novel launch or support operations. In a CPFF contract, the contractor is reimbursed for allowable costs plus a fixed fee, which represents their profit. This differs from fixed-price contracts, where the price is set upfront, and cost-reimbursement contracts, where costs are reimbursed without a predetermined fee. For services like launch and support, which can be subject to unforeseen technical challenges or environmental factors, CPFF can provide flexibility. However, it also places a greater burden on the government to monitor costs to prevent overruns, as the contractor has less incentive to control expenses compared to a fixed-price arrangement. Competitive bidding on fixed-price contracts often yields better value for the government.
What are the potential risks associated with a sole-source award for critical launch and support services?
Sole-source awards for critical services like those provided under the IGF Range Operations Contract Bridge (ROC-B) carry several risks. Firstly, the absence of competition can lead to inflated pricing, as the contractor faces no pressure to offer the most cost-effective solution. Taxpayers may end up paying more than necessary. Secondly, without a competitive process, there's a reduced incentive for the contractor to innovate or improve efficiency beyond what is contractually required. Thirdly, it limits the government's ability to explore alternative solutions or providers that might offer superior capabilities or better value. Finally, sole-source awards can raise concerns about fairness and transparency in the procurement process, potentially leading to perceptions of favoritism or missed opportunities for other qualified businesses.
What is the historical spending pattern for similar range operations and launch support services at NASA?
Analyzing historical spending patterns for similar services at NASA is crucial for context. While the specific data for 'IGF::OT::IGF RANGE OPERATIONS CONTRACT BRIDGE (ROC-B)' is provided, understanding its place within NASA's broader procurement history requires looking at prior contracts for range operations, launch vehicle support, and satellite deployment. Without access to NASA's historical contract database, it's difficult to provide precise figures. However, NASA consistently invests significant funds in launch services and associated operational support, often through large, multi-year contracts. The total amount of $95.4 million for this specific contract, spanning over 1000 days, suggests a substantial but not necessarily outlier expenditure for such critical, specialized services within the agency's budget. Trends might show shifts towards more integrated support contracts or increased reliance on specific providers over time.
What performance metrics are typically tracked for contracts involving launch and support services?
For contracts involving launch and support services, performance metrics are critical to ensure mission success and operational readiness. Key performance indicators (KPIs) often include: on-time launch performance (meeting scheduled launch windows), vehicle readiness rates (ensuring vehicles are prepared and functional), successful mission completion rates, adherence to safety protocols, and responsiveness to operational issues or anomalies. For support services, metrics might also cover response times for technical assistance, availability of personnel and equipment, and the quality of maintenance or integration work. Under a CPFF contract, performance is closely tied to cost control and adherence to the fixed fee, alongside the technical execution of the services. NASA would typically establish specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART) goals within the contract's Performance Work Statement (PWS) to evaluate the contractor's performance.
What is the track record of LJT & Associates, Inc. with NASA or similar government contracts?
The provided data identifies LJT & Associates, Inc. as the contractor for the IGF Range Operations Contract Bridge (ROC-B). To assess their track record, one would need to examine their past performance on similar government contracts, particularly with NASA or other agencies involved in aerospace and defense. This would involve reviewing contract databases for previous awards, performance evaluations (like Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System - CPARS), and any history of disputes or contract modifications. A strong track record typically includes successful delivery of services, adherence to schedule and budget, and positive performance reviews. Conversely, a history of performance issues, cost overruns, or contract terminations would raise concerns. Without access to this broader performance history, it's difficult to definitively assess LJT & Associates, Inc.'s suitability and reliability for this specific contract beyond the information provided.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Information › Other Telecommunications › All Other Telecommunications
Product/Service Code: RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT › General Science and Technology R&D Services
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED
Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE
Solicitation ID: NNG16592048R
Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Parent Company: LJT & Associates Inc
Address: 9881 BROKEN LAND PKWY STE 400, COLUMBIA, MD, 21046
Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, Subchapter S Corporation, U.S.-Owned Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $108,100,000
Exercised Options: $108,100,000
Current Obligation: $95,400,701
Actual Outlays: $8,769,313
Subaward Activity
Number of Subawards: 17
Total Subaward Amount: $7,969,958
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED
Cost or Pricing Data: YES
Timeline
Start Date: 2016-09-22
Current End Date: 2019-08-09
Potential End Date: 2019-08-09 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2025-09-22
More Contracts from LJT & Associates, Inc
- THE Overall Scope of This Contract IS to Provide Wallops Research Range (WRR) Operations and Maintenance; Support Services; Training; Command, Control, Communications, Information and Computer Systems Services; Testing, Modifying and Installing Communications and Electronic Systems AT Launch Facilities, Launch Control Centers and Test Facilities; and Range Technology Development Engineering Services. This Effort Provides Direct Customer Support to Nasa Wallops Flight Facility's (wffs) Wallops Research Range by Providing Qualified Personnel, Equipment, Tools, Materials, Vehicles, Specialized Test Equipment, Supervision, and Other Services — $181.3M (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
- Afcis Award — $17.1M (Department of Defense)
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 →