NASA awards $144M for Constellation Crew Launch Vehicle Mobile Launcher construction
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $144,133,750 ($144.1M)
Contractor: Hensel Phelps Construction CO
Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Start Date: 2008-05-08
End Date: 2010-10-02
Contract Duration: 877 days
Daily Burn Rate: $164.3K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Number of Offers Received: 2
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE
Sector: Construction
Official Description: CONSTRUCTION OF CONSTELLATION CREW LAUNCH VEHICLE (CLV) MOBILE LAUNCHER (ML) PCN 98535
Place of Performance
Location: ORLANDO, BREVARD County, FLORIDA, 32899
State: Florida Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $144.1 million to HENSEL PHELPS CONSTRUCTION CO for work described as: CONSTRUCTION OF CONSTELLATION CREW LAUNCH VEHICLE (CLV) MOBILE LAUNCHER (ML) PCN 98535 Key points: 1. Contract awarded to a single, large construction firm, suggesting a focus on established capabilities. 2. The fixed-price contract type aims to transfer risk to the contractor. 3. The project duration of 877 days indicates a significant construction undertaking. 4. The contract was awarded under full and open competition, implying a broad search for qualified bidders. 5. The project is located in Florida, a hub for aerospace and launch activities. 6. The contract value of $144 million represents a substantial investment in launch infrastructure.
Value Assessment
Rating: fair
The contract value of $144 million for the construction of a mobile launcher is a significant investment. Benchmarking this against similar large-scale construction projects for launch infrastructure is challenging due to the unique nature of the Constellation program. However, the firm-fixed-price structure suggests an attempt to control costs, though the final cost will depend on the contractor's execution. Without detailed cost breakdowns or comparisons to alternative construction methods, a precise value-for-money assessment is difficult.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: full-and-open
The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that NASA sought proposals from all responsible sources. The presence of two bidders suggests a competitive process, though the specific number of proposals received and the evaluation criteria would provide a clearer picture of the competition's intensity. A higher number of bidders typically leads to better price discovery and potentially lower costs for the government.
Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is generally favorable for taxpayers as it increases the likelihood of obtaining the best value through a robust bidding process.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiaries are NASA and its future space exploration missions, particularly those utilizing the Constellation program's launch vehicles. The project delivers critical infrastructure for launching spacecraft, enabling future human spaceflight. The geographic impact is concentrated in Florida, supporting the state's role as a center for space launch operations. The construction project likely created numerous jobs in the construction and related industries in the Florida region.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen construction challenges arise, despite the fixed-price nature.
- Dependence on the contractor's ability to meet the demanding schedule for a complex construction project.
- The long-term viability of the Constellation program itself could impact the ultimate utility of this infrastructure.
Positive Signals
- Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a thorough vetting of potential contractors.
- Firm-fixed-price contract type shifts cost risk to the contractor.
- The project is located in a region with significant aerospace and construction expertise.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the construction sector, specifically for large-scale, specialized infrastructure. The aerospace industry relies heavily on such construction for launch pads, assembly buildings, and support facilities. The market for constructing unique, high-stakes launch infrastructure is limited, often involving a few specialized large construction firms with proven track records in complex projects. Spending benchmarks are difficult to establish due to the bespoke nature of launch facilities.
Small Business Impact
The contract was awarded to Hensel Phelps Construction Co., a large prime contractor, and there is no indication of a small business set-aside. This suggests that the primary contract was not specifically targeted towards small businesses. However, large construction projects typically involve extensive subcontracting, which could provide opportunities for small businesses in various trades and services. The extent of small business participation would depend on the prime contractor's subcontracting plan.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would primarily be managed by NASA's contracting officers and project managers, ensuring adherence to the contract terms, schedule, and quality standards. The firm-fixed-price nature provides a degree of accountability for the contractor regarding cost. Transparency would be facilitated through contract award notices and potentially through NASA's public reporting on the Constellation program. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.
Related Government Programs
- NASA Constellation Program
- Launch Vehicle Development
- Aerospace Infrastructure Projects
- Large-Scale Construction Contracts
Risk Flags
- Potential for schedule delays due to complexity of construction.
- Cost overruns possible despite fixed-price contract if scope changes or unforeseen issues arise.
- Dependence on contractor's financial stability and performance.
- Long-term relevance contingent on Constellation program's success and evolution.
Tags
construction, nasa, space-exploration, mobile-launcher, firm-fixed-price, full-and-open-competition, large-contract, florida, aerospace, infrastructure
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $144.1 million to HENSEL PHELPS CONSTRUCTION CO. CONSTRUCTION OF CONSTELLATION CREW LAUNCH VEHICLE (CLV) MOBILE LAUNCHER (ML) PCN 98535
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is HENSEL PHELPS CONSTRUCTION CO.
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 $144.1 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2008-05-08. End: 2010-10-02.
What was the track record of Hensel Phelps Construction Co. on similar large-scale government construction projects prior to this award?
Hensel Phelps Construction Co. has a long and extensive history of undertaking large-scale construction projects for both government and private sector clients. Prior to the 2008 award for the Constellation Crew Launch Vehicle Mobile Launcher, the company had completed numerous complex projects, including airport terminals, stadiums, and other significant infrastructure. Their experience in managing large budgets, complex schedules, and diverse workforces would have been a key factor in NASA's evaluation. While specific project details and performance metrics for every past contract are not publicly detailed in a readily comparable format, Hensel Phelps' sustained presence and reputation in the industry indicate a generally strong track record in delivering complex construction endeavors.
How does the awarded amount of $144 million compare to the estimated cost for similar mobile launcher construction projects?
Direct comparisons for mobile launcher construction costs are difficult due to the highly specialized and unique nature of each project, especially for nascent programs like Constellation. Unlike standardized construction, mobile launchers are custom-built for specific vehicle requirements and launch site conditions. The $144 million figure for the Constellation ML represents a significant investment in unique aerospace infrastructure. Benchmarking against other large, complex construction projects (e.g., major airport infrastructure, specialized industrial facilities) might offer a very broad perspective on scale, but not a direct cost-per-square-foot or per-functionality comparison. The Constellation program's ambitious goals and the cutting-edge technology involved likely contributed to the substantial cost.
What were the primary risk indicators assessed by NASA during the procurement process for this mobile launcher contract?
Key risk indicators for this mobile launcher contract likely included technical risks associated with the design and integration of complex systems, schedule risks given the critical path nature of launch infrastructure, and cost risks inherent in large-scale construction. Given the firm-fixed-price contract type, NASA aimed to mitigate cost risks by transferring them to the contractor. However, risks related to contractor performance, potential for unforeseen site conditions, and the contractor's ability to manage a large workforce and complex supply chain would have been closely monitored. The novelty of the Constellation program itself, with its evolving requirements, could also have presented programmatic risks that influenced the procurement strategy and risk assessment.
What is the historical spending pattern for NASA's launch infrastructure development and construction over the past decade?
NASA's spending on launch infrastructure development and construction has varied significantly over the past decade, influenced by program priorities and budget allocations. Following the Space Shuttle program, there was a period of transition and development for new launch capabilities, including the Ares rockets under the Constellation program, which saw substantial investment in facilities like the mobile launcher. Subsequently, with the shift towards commercial crew and cargo programs and the development of the Space Launch System (SLS), spending has focused on upgrading existing facilities (like Kennedy Space Center's Launch Complex 39) and constructing new, specialized infrastructure to support these evolving missions. Direct comparisons are complex as spending is often spread across multiple projects and fiscal years, and includes both new construction and upgrades.
How did the competition level (2 bidders) impact the final contract price and value for taxpayers?
Having two bidders for a contract of this magnitude suggests a degree of competition, which is generally beneficial for taxpayers. A more robust competition, with a larger number of qualified bidders, typically drives prices down as companies vie for the contract. With only two bidders, there is a risk that the competition was less intense than ideal, potentially leading to a higher-than-market price. However, the specific nature of specialized construction like a mobile launcher may inherently limit the number of capable firms. NASA's evaluation process would have been crucial in ensuring that the selected bid represented the best value, considering both price and technical merit, even with limited competition.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Construction › Foundation, Structure, and Building Exterior Contractors › Structural Steel and Precast Concrete Contractors
Product/Service Code: CONSTRUCT OF STRUCTURES/FACILITIES › CONSTRUCT NONBUILDING FACILITIES
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE
Solicitation ID: NNK07201535R
Offers Received: 2
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Address: 6280 HAZELTINE NATIONAL DR, ORLANDO, FL, 90
Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $144,133,750
Exercised Options: $144,133,750
Current Obligation: $144,133,750
Timeline
Start Date: 2008-05-08
Current End Date: 2010-10-02
Potential End Date: 2010-10-02 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2011-02-16
More Contracts from Hensel Phelps Construction CO
- 200112!000146!9700!ZD47 !pentagon Renovation Management !mda94701c2001 !A!N!*!N! !20010918!20121129!791702194!791702194!063322085!n!hensel Phelps Construction CO !4437 Brookfield Corporate !chantilly !va!20151!61672!013!51!pentagon !arlington !virginia !+000145000000!n!n!000000000000!y300!restoration Activities !C2 !construction !1000!NOT Discernable or Classified !233320!*!*!3! ! ! !*!*!*!B!*!*!A! !A !N!L!2!003!B! !D!Y!Z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !a!a!a!a!000!a!c!n! ! ! ! ! ! !0001! — $1.6B (Department of Defense)
- C103157: Surgery, Radiology, and Laboratory Medicine (srlm) Building Construction — $756.4M (Department of Health and Human Services)
- ECB3 Base BID — $711.3M (Department of Defense)
- Zone 1 Tyndall AFB, FL — $650.0M (Department of Defense)
- Award Construction Contract for Repair of Administrative Spaces, Various Locations, Oahu, Hawaii — $378.7M (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 →