NASA awards $17.7M for system engineering and special studies to The Aerospace Corporation
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $17,742,908 ($17.7M)
Contractor: THE Aerospace Corporation
Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Start Date: 2006-07-25
End Date: 2011-07-24
Contract Duration: 1,825 days
Daily Burn Rate: $9.7K/day
Competition Type: NOT COMPETED
Number of Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE
Sector: R&D
Official Description: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE SYSTEM ENGINEERING, SPECIAL STUDIES AND ASSESSMENTS SUPPORT TO MEET NASA S MISSION, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES. THE PURPOSE OF THIS SUPPORT IS TO PROVIDE NASA MANAGEMENT WITH TIMELY, OBJECTIVE SYSTEM ENGINEERING, SPECIAL STUDIES AND ASSESSMENTS OF PROGRAMS, PROJECTS AND/OR STRATEGIC ISSUES. THE KEY TECHNICAL AREAS OF SUPPORT INCLUDE CONCEPT DESIGN, ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS, TECHNOLOGY READINESS, RISK IDENTIFICATION AND MITIGATION, LIFE CYCLE COST, AND SCHEDULE EVALUATION.
Place of Performance
Location: WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA County, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 20546
Plain-Language Summary
National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $17.7 million to THE AEROSPACE CORPORATION for work described as: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE SYSTEM ENGINEERING, SPECIAL STUDIES AND ASSESSMENTS SUPPORT TO MEET NASA S MISSION, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES. THE PURPOSE OF THIS SUPPORT IS TO PROVIDE NASA MANAGEMENT WITH TIMELY, OBJECTIVE SYSTEM ENGINEERING, SPECIAL STUDIES AND ASSESSMENTS OF PROGRAMS,… Key points: 1. Contract focuses on providing objective system engineering, studies, and assessments for NASA programs. 2. Key technical areas include concept design, alternatives analysis, technology readiness, and risk mitigation. 3. The contract duration spans five years, from July 2006 to July 2011. 4. This is a definitive contract with a Cost Plus Fixed Fee payment structure. 5. The contractor, The Aerospace Corporation, is a non-profit organization. 6. The contract was awarded without competition.
Value Assessment
Rating: fair
Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging due to its specific nature and the lack of competitive bids. The Cost Plus Fixed Fee structure can sometimes lead to higher costs if not managed carefully, but it also allows for flexibility in scope. Without comparable contracts or detailed cost breakdowns, a precise value-for-money assessment is difficult. The total award amount of $17.7 million over five years suggests a significant investment in specialized support services for NASA's mission-critical objectives.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: sole-source
This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning it was not competed among multiple vendors. This approach is typically used when a specific contractor possesses unique capabilities or when circumstances do not permit full and open competition. The lack of competition means that NASA did not benefit from the price discovery that typically occurs in a competitive bidding process, potentially leading to higher costs than if multiple offers had been considered.
Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may have paid a premium for this contract due to the absence of competitive pressure. Without a bidding process, there is less assurance that the price reflects the most economical option available in the market.
Public Impact
NASA management benefits from timely, objective analysis of programs and strategic issues. Support services aid in evaluating concept designs, technology readiness, and risk mitigation for NASA projects. The contract contributes to the successful execution of NASA's overall mission and goals. Workforce implications are likely internal to NASA, with the contractor providing specialized expertise.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Sole-source award limits price competition and potential cost savings for taxpayers.
- Cost Plus Fixed Fee contracts can incentivize cost overruns if not closely monitored.
- Lack of transparency in the sole-source justification could obscure potential alternatives.
Positive Signals
- The Aerospace Corporation is a well-established entity with a history of supporting aerospace research and development.
- The contract's focus on critical areas like risk mitigation and life cycle cost is essential for complex NASA projects.
- The long-term nature of the contract (5 years) suggests a stable and ongoing need for these specialized services.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the Research and Development sector, specifically focusing on physical, engineering, and life sciences. The market for system engineering and specialized studies support for government agencies, particularly in the aerospace domain, is highly specialized. Companies like The Aerospace Corporation, often non-profits or Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs), play a crucial role in providing objective analysis and technical expertise that government entities may not possess internally. Comparable spending benchmarks are difficult to establish due to the unique nature of FFRDC support and sole-source awards.
Small Business Impact
This contract does not appear to have specific small business set-aside provisions. As a sole-source award to a large, non-profit organization, it is unlikely to involve significant subcontracting opportunities for small businesses unless The Aerospace Corporation voluntarily engages them for specific tasks. The primary impact is on the direct services provided by the contractor, rather than the broader small business ecosystem.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would primarily reside with NASA's contracting officers and program managers. As a Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract, rigorous financial oversight and performance monitoring are crucial to ensure that costs are reasonable and that the contractor is meeting its objectives. Transparency regarding the justification for the sole-source award and the ongoing performance metrics would be key accountability measures. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.
Related Government Programs
- NASA System Engineering Support Contracts
- Aerospace Research and Development Services
- Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC) Support
- NASA Program Management Support
Risk Flags
- Sole-source award
- Cost-reimbursable contract type (CPFF)
Tags
research-and-development, nasa, system-engineering, special-studies, definitive-contract, cost-plus-fixed-fee, sole-source, aerospace-corporation, ffrdc, district-of-columbia, non-profit, program-support
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $17.7 million to THE AEROSPACE CORPORATION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE SYSTEM ENGINEERING, SPECIAL STUDIES AND ASSESSMENTS SUPPORT TO MEET NASA S MISSION, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES. THE PURPOSE OF THIS SUPPORT IS TO PROVIDE NASA MANAGEMENT WITH TIMELY, OBJECTIVE SYSTEM ENGINEERING, SPECIAL STUDIES AND ASSESSMENTS OF PROGRAMS, PROJECTS AND/OR STRATEGIC ISSUES. THE KEY TECHNICAL AREAS OF SUPPORT INCLUDE CONCEPT DESIGN, ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS, TECHNOLOGY READINESS, RISK IDENTIFICATION AND MITIGATION, LIFE CYCLE COST, AND SCHEDULE EVALUATION.
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is THE AEROSPACE CORPORATION.
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 $17.7 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2006-07-25. End: 2011-07-24.
What is the specific justification for awarding this contract on a sole-source basis to The Aerospace Corporation?
The provided data does not explicitly state the justification for the sole-source award. However, The Aerospace Corporation is a Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC) operated by The Aerospace Corporation, a non-profit public benefit corporation. FFRDCs are often awarded sole-source contracts due to their unique capabilities, independence, and long-term strategic relationship with the sponsoring government agency (in this case, NASA). This allows them to provide objective, in-depth analysis and technical support that may not be readily available from commercial entities or that requires a high degree of trust and continuity.
How does the Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) payment structure typically influence contractor behavior and costs in R&D contracts?
The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) structure is common for research and development contracts where the scope of work may be uncertain or evolve. Under CPFF, the contractor is reimbursed for all allowable costs incurred, plus a predetermined fixed fee representing profit. This structure incentivizes the contractor to complete the work efficiently to maximize their fee relative to costs. However, it also requires robust oversight from the government to ensure costs are reasonable and allocable to the contract. Unlike fixed-price contracts, there is less direct financial incentive for the contractor to minimize costs beyond what is necessary to achieve the fixed fee, making government oversight critical.
What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) likely used to assess the success of this system engineering support contract?
Key performance indicators for this contract would likely focus on the quality, timeliness, and objectivity of the system engineering, special studies, and assessments provided. This could include metrics such as the accuracy and impact of risk identification and mitigation recommendations, the thoroughness of alternatives analyses, the validity of technology readiness assessments, and the adherence to project schedules and life cycle cost evaluations. NASA management's satisfaction with the insights and decision support provided would also be a critical, albeit qualitative, KPI. Timeliness of deliverables and responsiveness to ad-hoc requests would also be important.
Can the $17.7 million award value be benchmarked against similar system engineering support contracts for NASA or other agencies?
Benchmarking this $17.7 million award value is challenging without more specific details about the scope of work, duration, and the specific technical areas covered. System engineering and specialized studies can vary widely in complexity and cost. Furthermore, as a sole-source award to an FFRDC, direct comparisons to competitively bid contracts may not be appropriate. However, considering the five-year duration (2006-2011), the average annual value is approximately $3.54 million. This figure needs to be contextualized within NASA's overall budget for R&D and program support during that period.
What is The Aerospace Corporation's track record in providing similar support services to NASA or other government agencies?
The Aerospace Corporation has a long-standing history of providing technical support and systems engineering expertise to NASA and other government agencies, particularly within the defense and space sectors. As an FFRDC, its core mission is to provide objective, independent technical advice and analysis. Their track record typically involves supporting complex, high-stakes programs, contributing to mission success through rigorous analysis, risk assessment, and strategic planning. Specific details of past performance on similar NASA contracts would require further investigation into NASA's contract databases and historical performance reviews.
What are the potential risks associated with relying on a single contractor for critical system engineering and assessment functions?
The primary risk of relying on a single contractor, especially through a sole-source award, is the potential lack of diverse perspectives and the absence of competitive pressure to drive down costs or foster innovation. If the contractor's capabilities degrade or their recommendations become biased, the agency may lack alternatives. There's also a risk of knowledge transfer limitations if the contractor's personnel turnover significantly. For this specific contract, the risk is mitigated somewhat by The Aerospace Corporation's status as an FFRDC, which implies a mission-oriented, objective approach rather than a purely profit-driven one.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Scientific Research and Development Services › Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences
Product/Service Code: SPECIAL STUDIES/ANALYSIS, NOT R&D › SPECIAL STUDIES - NOT R and D
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED
Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE
Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Address: 2350 E EL SEGUNDO BLVD, EL SEGUNDO, CA, 90245
Business Categories: Category Business, Nonprofit Organization, Not Designated a Small Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $18,000,000
Exercised Options: $18,000,000
Current Obligation: $17,742,908
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED
Timeline
Start Date: 2006-07-25
Current End Date: 2011-07-24
Potential End Date: 2011-07-24 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2016-09-20
More Contracts from THE Aerospace Corporation
- FY19 Engineering Services — $7.9B (Department of Defense)
- Aerospace Ffrdc Contract From 1 OCT 2013 to 30 Sept 2018 — $4.3B (Department of Defense)
- Aerospace Ffrdc Contract — $4.0B (Department of Defense)
- Federal Contract — $3.3B (Department of Defense)
- Nasa-Wide Specialized Engineering, Evaluation and Test Services (nseets) to Provide On/Off-Site Project Independent Multidisciplinary Engineering Services, Testing, Consulting, Contractor-On-Site Monitoring, and Evaluation of Project And/Or Programs — $166.3M (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 →