NASA's $1.67B engineering support contract with BASTION TECHNOLOGIES, INC. awarded in 2006
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $16,759,057 ($16.8M)
Contractor: Bastion Technologies, Inc.
Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Start Date: 2006-10-01
End Date: 2012-03-31
Contract Duration: 2,008 days
Daily Burn Rate: $8.3K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES
Number of Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE
Sector: IT
Official Description: ENGINEERING DIRECTORATE CONFIGURATION MNGMT
Place of Performance
Location: HOUSTON, HARRIS County, TEXAS, 77058
State: Texas Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $16.8 million to BASTION TECHNOLOGIES, INC. for work described as: ENGINEERING DIRECTORATE CONFIGURATION MNGMT Key points: 1. Contract value of $1.67 billion over its period of performance suggests a significant, long-term need for engineering support. 2. The contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources,' indicating a competitive process with specific exclusions. 3. The 'Cost Plus Fixed Fee' pricing structure means contractor profit is fixed, but costs can fluctuate, requiring careful oversight. 4. The contract duration of approximately 5.5 years (Oct 2006 - Mar 2012) indicates a substantial commitment. 5. The primary NAICS code (541513) points to Computer Facilities Management Services, suggesting a focus on IT infrastructure and support. 6. Awarded to BASTION TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a single contractor, highlighting the importance of their specialized capabilities. 7. The contract was not set aside for small businesses, suggesting it was awarded based on best value and capability. 8. The contract was awarded by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), a high-profile agency with complex technical requirements.
Value Assessment
Rating: fair
The total award amount of $1.67 billion over roughly 5.5 years represents a significant investment by NASA. Benchmarking this against similar large-scale engineering support contracts within federal agencies is challenging without more granular data on the specific services provided. The 'Cost Plus Fixed Fee' (CPFF) structure, while common for complex projects, can lead to cost overruns if not managed diligently. The fixed fee provides some cost certainty for the contractor's profit, but the overall cost to the government is variable.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: limited
The contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources.' This designation implies that while the competition was generally open, certain sources were excluded, possibly due to specific technical requirements, security clearances, or prior performance issues. The exact reasons for exclusion are not detailed here, but it suggests a narrowed field of potential bidders. The number of bidders is not specified, making it difficult to fully assess the intensity of the competition.
Taxpayer Impact: The exclusion of certain sources, even in an otherwise open competition, could potentially limit price discovery and may result in higher costs for taxpayers if the remaining pool of bidders is small or lacks strong competitive pressure.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiaries are NASA's engineering directorates, which receive essential configuration management and computer facilities management services. The contract supports critical functions related to the management and maintenance of NASA's complex IT infrastructure and engineering data. The geographic impact is primarily centered around NASA facilities, likely in Texas where the contractor is based, and potentially other agency locations. The workforce implications include employment for personnel at BASTION TECHNOLOGIES, INC. who possess specialized skills in engineering support and IT management.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Potential for cost creep under the CPFF structure if not rigorously monitored.
- The 'Exclusion of Sources' clause warrants further investigation into the justification and impact on competition.
- Lack of specific performance metrics makes it difficult to assess the contractor's efficiency and effectiveness.
- Long-term nature of the contract could lead to vendor lock-in if not managed proactively.
Positive Signals
- Awarded through a competitive process, suggesting a selection based on merit and capability.
- The significant contract value indicates a high level of trust and perceived value from NASA.
- The CPFF structure, while having risks, can be effective for projects with evolving requirements.
- Contractor's long tenure (if this is a renewal or extension) could indicate consistent performance.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the IT services sector, specifically focusing on computer facilities management and engineering support. The federal IT services market is vast and highly competitive, with agencies like NASA requiring specialized expertise for complex missions. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other large IT support contracts awarded to system integrators and managed service providers within the federal government, particularly those supporting research and development or mission-critical operations.
Small Business Impact
This contract was not awarded as a small business set-aside, nor does it appear to have specific small business subcontracting goals explicitly mentioned in the provided data. This suggests that the primary contractor, BASTION TECHNOLOGIES, INC., was selected based on its capabilities to fulfill the extensive requirements of NASA. The absence of set-aside provisions indicates that the competition was focused on obtaining the best overall solution, potentially from larger or more specialized firms, rather than prioritizing small business participation.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by NASA's contracting officers and program managers, responsible for monitoring performance, costs, and compliance. The 'Cost Plus Fixed Fee' structure necessitates close financial oversight to ensure costs remain reasonable and the fixed fee is justified. Transparency would be enhanced through regular reporting requirements from the contractor and potentially through NASA's internal audit processes. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply to investigations of fraud, waste, or abuse related to the contract.
Related Government Programs
- NASA IT Support Services
- Federal IT Infrastructure Management
- Engineering Services Contracts
- Configuration Management Services
- Cost-Plus Contracts
- Large Federal IT Procurements
Risk Flags
- Potential for cost overruns due to CPFF structure.
- Limited transparency on reasons for 'Exclusion of Sources'.
- Lack of detailed performance metrics in summary data.
- Significant contract value requires robust oversight.
Tags
nasa, it-services, engineering-support, configuration-management, computer-facilities-management, cost-plus-fixed-fee, full-and-open-competition, bastion-technologies-inc, texas, large-contract, federal-agency, it-infrastructure
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $16.8 million to BASTION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.. ENGINEERING DIRECTORATE CONFIGURATION MNGMT
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is BASTION TECHNOLOGIES, 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 $16.8 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2006-10-01. End: 2012-03-31.
What specific engineering directorate functions were supported by this contract, and how did they align with NASA's mission objectives during the contract period?
This contract, awarded to BASTION TECHNOLOGIES, INC., focused on 'ENGINEERING DIRECTORATE CONFIGURATION MNGMT' and was classified under NAICS code 541513 (Computer Facilities Management Services). This suggests the services provided were crucial for managing NASA's engineering data, systems, and IT infrastructure. Configuration management is vital for tracking changes, ensuring system integrity, and maintaining the reliability of complex engineering projects and operational systems. These functions directly support NASA's mission by ensuring the stability and efficiency of the technological backbone required for space exploration, research, and development. Without robust configuration management and reliable IT facilities, NASA's ability to execute its complex, long-term projects would be significantly hampered.
Can the 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' clause be further elaborated upon, and what impact might it have had on the final contract price?
The 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' clause indicates that while the solicitation was intended to be open to all responsible sources, certain entities were specifically excluded from bidding. The reasons for exclusion are not provided in the summary data but could stem from various factors such as specific technical qualifications, security requirements, past performance issues, or proprietary technology access. This exclusion narrows the competitive pool, which, depending on the number of remaining bidders, could potentially reduce price competition compared to a truly unrestricted full and open competition. If only a few bidders remained after exclusions, the government might not achieve the lowest possible price. Further analysis would require understanding who was excluded and why, and how many bids were ultimately received.
How does the 'Cost Plus Fixed Fee' (CPFF) pricing structure compare to other contract types used by NASA for similar IT and engineering support services, and what are the associated risks?
The CPFF structure is often used for research and development or complex services where the scope of work is not precisely defined at the outset, allowing for flexibility as requirements evolve. In this structure, the contractor is reimbursed for allowable costs plus a fixed fee representing their profit. Compared to fixed-price contracts, CPFF shifts some cost risk to the government, as total costs can exceed initial estimates. However, it provides more certainty on contractor profit than 'Cost Plus Incentive Fee' (CPIF) or 'Cost Plus Award Fee' (CPAF) contracts. NASA, like other agencies, uses a mix of contract types. For IT services with more defined scopes, fixed-price contracts might be preferred for cost control. The primary risk with CPFF is potential cost overruns if the government's oversight and cost controls are not robust, necessitating diligent monitoring of expenditures against the estimated cost.
What was the historical spending trend for engineering directorate configuration management and computer facilities management services at NASA prior to and following this contract?
The provided data focuses on a single contract award of $1.67 billion. To understand historical spending trends, one would need to examine NASA's procurement data for similar services over several fiscal years. This would involve identifying contracts with comparable NAICS codes (like 541513) and service descriptions related to engineering support, configuration management, and IT facilities management. Analyzing this data would reveal whether spending in this category has been consistently high, increasing, or decreasing, and whether BASTION TECHNOLOGIES, INC. has been a dominant contractor over time or if NASA has utilized multiple vendors. Without access to broader historical procurement databases, it's impossible to establish a trend based solely on this contract.
What is the track record of BASTION TECHNOLOGIES, INC. with NASA and other federal agencies, particularly concerning performance on large, complex IT and engineering support contracts?
The data indicates BASTION TECHNOLOGIES, INC. was awarded this significant $1.67 billion contract by NASA. To assess their track record, a deeper dive into contract performance databases (like FPDS or SAM.gov) would be necessary. This would involve reviewing past performance evaluations, any contract modifications, disputes, or terminations associated with BASTION TECHNOLOGIES, INC. contracts, especially those with NASA and other federal agencies. Understanding their history on similar large-scale IT and engineering support contracts is crucial for evaluating their reliability, technical capability, and cost management effectiveness. A positive track record would suggest a lower risk for future engagements, while a history of issues could indicate potential concerns.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Computer Systems Design and Related Services › Computer Facilities Management 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
Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Address: 17625 EL CAMINO REAL # 330, HOUSTON, TX, 77058
Business Categories: 8(a) Program Participant, Category Business, Hispanic American Owned Business, Minority Owned Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $17,000,000
Exercised Options: $17,000,000
Current Obligation: $16,759,057
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED
Timeline
Start Date: 2006-10-01
Current End Date: 2012-03-31
Potential End Date: 2012-03-31 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2020-02-27
More Contracts from Bastion Technologies, Inc.
- Safety and Mission Assurance Services to Support Marshall Space Flight Center, Stennis Space Center, Kennedy Space Center and Michoud Assembly Facility — $337.3M (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
- Provide Support of the Safety and Mission Assurance Office AT Msfc, Stennis and Other Sites AS Needed — $237.4M (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
- Task Order for Amcom Safety Office Support Services — $24.3M (Department of Defense)
- Initial Award — $14.3M (Department of Defense)
- Engineering Directorate Configuration Management — $12.9M (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 →