NASA's $20.87M Facilities Project Management Contract Awarded to Gilbane Building Company
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $20,870,318 ($20.9M)
Contractor: Gilbane Building Company
Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Start Date: 2008-08-25
End Date: 2014-06-16
Contract Duration: 2,121 days
Daily Burn Rate: $9.8K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Number of Offers Received: 3
Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS
Sector: Construction
Official Description: FACILITIES PROJECT MANAGEMENT & ENGINEERING SUPPORT SERVICE FOR JSC, ELLINGTON FIELD, AND SONNY CARTER TEST FACILITY
Place of Performance
Location: HOUSTON, HARRIS County, TEXAS, 77058
State: Texas Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $20.9 million to GILBANE BUILDING COMPANY for work described as: FACILITIES PROJECT MANAGEMENT & ENGINEERING SUPPORT SERVICE FOR JSC, ELLINGTON FIELD, AND SONNY CARTER TEST FACILITY Key points: 1. Contract awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 2. The contract type is Time and Materials, which can pose cost control challenges if not managed closely. 3. The duration of the contract (2121 days) indicates a long-term need for these services. 4. The award was made by NASA's National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 5. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 541330 points to Engineering Services. 6. The contract was awarded as a Definitive Contract, typically used for services over a period of time.
Value Assessment
Rating: fair
The total award amount of $20.87 million over approximately 5.8 years suggests a significant investment in facilities project management and engineering support. Without specific performance metrics or detailed cost breakdowns, it is difficult to definitively benchmark the value for money. However, the Time and Materials pricing structure warrants careful monitoring to ensure costs remain within reasonable bounds compared to industry standards for similar large-scale engineering support services. The absence of a small business set-aside might indicate that the scope of work required specialized capabilities not readily available from smaller firms.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: full-and-open
This contract was awarded under a full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit a bid. The presence of 3 bidders suggests a moderate level of competition for this significant contract. While more bidders could potentially drive prices lower, three offers generally provide a reasonable basis for price discovery and selection of a qualified contractor.
Taxpayer Impact: A competitive bidding process like this generally benefits taxpayers by encouraging multiple firms to offer their best pricing and technical solutions, potentially leading to a more cost-effective outcome for the government.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiaries are NASA's Johnson Space Center (JSC), Ellington Field, and the Sonny Carter Test Facility, which will receive enhanced project management and engineering support. Services delivered include project management, engineering support, and potentially construction oversight for facilities at these NASA locations. The geographic impact is concentrated in Texas, specifically Houston and its surrounding areas where these facilities are located. The contract likely supports a workforce of project managers, engineers, and support staff employed by Gilbane Building Company and potentially its subcontractors.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Time and Materials contract type can lead to cost overruns if not closely managed and monitored.
- Long contract duration (2121 days) may reduce flexibility to adapt to changing needs or technological advancements.
- Limited information on specific performance metrics makes it challenging to assess the contractor's efficiency and effectiveness.
- The absence of a small business set-aside might limit opportunities for smaller, specialized firms in the region.
Positive Signals
- Awarded through full and open competition, indicating a robust bidding process.
- The contractor, Gilbane Building Company, is a well-established entity with significant experience in construction and project management.
- The contract addresses critical facilities support for key NASA operational sites.
- The definitive contract award type provides a structured framework for service delivery over an extended period.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the Engineering Services sector, specifically focusing on facilities project management and engineering support. The market for such services is substantial, driven by government agencies and large private sector organizations with extensive infrastructure needs. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing other large-scale facilities management and engineering contracts awarded by federal agencies or major corporations. NASA's consistent investment in its facilities underscores the importance of reliable engineering and project management expertise in maintaining operational capabilities.
Small Business Impact
This contract was not set aside for small businesses, nor does it appear to have specific subcontracting requirements for small businesses mentioned in the provided data. This suggests that the scope of work was likely deemed too large or specialized for small business set-asides, or that the prime contractor was selected based on its own capabilities. The impact on the small business ecosystem is neutral to potentially negative if smaller, capable firms were excluded from direct participation.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the purview of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), likely through its contracting officers and program managers. Accountability measures would be defined within the contract's terms and conditions, including performance standards and reporting requirements. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases like FPDS-NG, which provide public access to contract details. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of suspected fraud, waste, or abuse.
Related Government Programs
- NASA Facilities Engineering and Construction
- JSC Operations Support
- Engineering Services Contracts
- Large-Scale Project Management
- Federal Infrastructure Support
Risk Flags
- Potential for cost overruns due to Time and Materials contract type.
- Long contract duration may limit adaptability.
- Need for robust government oversight to manage contractor performance and costs.
- Limited transparency on specific performance metrics and value achieved.
Tags
engineering-services, facilities-management, nasa, johnson-space-center, definitive-contract, time-and-materials, full-and-open-competition, texas, large-contract, project-management
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $20.9 million to GILBANE BUILDING COMPANY. FACILITIES PROJECT MANAGEMENT & ENGINEERING SUPPORT SERVICE FOR JSC, ELLINGTON FIELD, AND SONNY CARTER TEST FACILITY
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is GILBANE BUILDING COMPANY.
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 $20.9 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2008-08-25. End: 2014-06-16.
What is Gilbane Building Company's track record with NASA and other federal agencies for similar facilities management contracts?
Gilbane Building Company has a substantial history of working with federal agencies, including NASA, on various construction and facilities management projects. Their track record often includes large-scale infrastructure development, renovation, and specialized support services. For NASA specifically, Gilbane has been involved in projects at multiple centers, demonstrating familiarity with agency requirements and operational environments. A review of federal procurement data would likely reveal numerous other contracts, showcasing their experience in managing complex projects, adhering to government regulations, and delivering services within specified timelines and budgets. Their extensive portfolio suggests a capacity to handle significant federal contracts, though specific performance metrics for past NASA engagements would provide a more granular assessment of their reliability and value.
How does the $20.87 million contract value compare to similar facilities project management contracts awarded by NASA or other agencies of comparable size and scope?
The $20.87 million contract value for facilities project management and engineering support over approximately 5.8 years is a significant but not extraordinary amount for a major federal agency like NASA. Comparable contracts for similar services at large installations (e.g., military bases, other research facilities) can range from tens to hundreds of millions of dollars, depending on the complexity, duration, and specific services required. For instance, contracts for base operations support or major construction program management often exceed this figure. The value here appears aligned with the scope of supporting multiple key facilities for an agency like NASA, which requires specialized engineering and project oversight. Benchmarking against contracts with similar NAICS codes (541330) and contract types (Time and Materials, Definitive Contract) awarded by agencies like the Department of Defense or the General Services Administration would provide a more precise comparison.
What are the primary risks associated with a Time and Materials (T&M) contract of this magnitude and duration?
The primary risk with a Time and Materials (T&M) contract, especially one valued at $20.87 million over 2121 days, is the potential for cost overruns. Unlike fixed-price contracts, T&M contracts reimburse the contractor for the actual labor hours and material costs incurred, plus a fee. If the scope of work is not precisely defined, or if project management is weak, the contractor may incur more hours or use more expensive materials than anticipated, driving up the total cost beyond initial estimates. This necessitates robust government oversight to monitor labor hours, ensure efficiency, validate material costs, and control scope creep. Another risk is the potential for the contractor to prioritize billable hours over project efficiency. For NASA, managing these risks is crucial to ensure taxpayer funds are used effectively for essential facilities support.
How effective has NASA been historically in managing large-scale engineering and facilities support contracts to ensure optimal value?
NASA has a long history of managing complex engineering and facilities support contracts, with varying degrees of success. Historically, the agency has leveraged extensive in-house expertise alongside contractor support to maintain its cutting-edge facilities and research capabilities. While many contracts are executed successfully, NASA, like other large federal agencies, has faced challenges with cost overruns, schedule delays, and scope creep on certain large projects. The agency employs various oversight mechanisms, including contracting officer representatives (CORs), performance metrics, and regular reviews, to mitigate these risks. Inspector General reports and Government Accountability Office (GAO) audits occasionally highlight areas for improvement in contract management, particularly concerning cost controls on T&M contracts and ensuring competitive sourcing. Overall, NASA's effectiveness is generally considered high, given the complexity of its missions, but continuous vigilance in contract oversight remains critical.
What is the historical spending pattern for facilities project management and engineering support services at NASA's Johnson Space Center (JSC) and related facilities?
Historical spending patterns for facilities project management and engineering support at NASA's Johnson Space Center (JSC) and related facilities like Ellington Field would likely show consistent investment over the years, reflecting the ongoing need to maintain and upgrade complex aerospace infrastructure. This spending typically fluctuates based on major construction projects, modernization efforts, and operational requirements. Prior contracts for similar services would have been awarded to various prime contractors, potentially including Gilbane Building Company or its competitors. Analyzing historical data from sources like the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) would reveal trends in contract values, durations, and types of services procured. This analysis could identify periods of increased spending related to specific facility upgrades or new construction initiatives, providing context for the current $20.87 million award.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services › Engineering Services
Product/Service Code: ARCHITECT/ENGINEER SERVICES › ARCH-ENG SVCS - GENERAL
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Solicitation Procedures: ARCHITECT-ENGINEER FAR 6.102
Solicitation ID: NNJ08225001R
Offers Received: 3
Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS (Y)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Parent Company: Gilbane, Inc. (UEI: 022726165)
Address: 7 JACKSON WALKWAY, PROVIDENCE, RI, 02903
Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, Subchapter S Corporation, U.S.-Owned Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $23,662,800
Exercised Options: $23,662,800
Current Obligation: $20,870,318
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED
Timeline
Start Date: 2008-08-25
Current End Date: 2014-06-16
Potential End Date: 2014-06-16 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2020-02-27
More Contracts from Gilbane Building Company
- Arra::yes::arra TAS::75 0839::TAS -- Recovery ACT -- Cmc@risk Services to Renovate of Building 10 Wings E and F — $139.9M (Department of Health and Human Services)
- Construct National Biodefense Analysis & Countermeasures Center (nbacc) — $127.1M (Department of Homeland Security)
- TAS::75 0849::TAS Bldgs&fac / Admin&svc Bldgs — $109.2M (Department of Health and Human Services)
- P1997210, Office Bldg 106 & Parking Deck, Chamblee Campus — $109.1M (Department of Health and Human Services)
- Construction — $107.7M (Department of Health and Human Services)
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 →