NASA's $45M Safety and Mission Assurance contract awarded to Axient LLC shows potential for cost efficiencies
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $45,165,709 ($45.2M)
Contractor: Axient LLC
Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Start Date: 2008-04-01
End Date: 2012-09-30
Contract Duration: 1,643 days
Daily Burn Rate: $27.5K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES
Number of Offers Received: 3
Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE
Sector: Other
Official Description: SAFETY AND MISSION ASSURANCE SUPPORT SERVICES
Place of Performance
Location: ORLANDO, BREVARD County, FLORIDA, 32899
State: Florida Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $45.2 million to AXIENT LLC for work described as: SAFETY AND MISSION ASSURANCE SUPPORT SERVICES Key points: 1. Contract awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a competitive pricing environment. 2. The contract type, Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF), incentivizes performance but requires careful oversight. 3. Duration of over 4 years indicates a significant, long-term need for these services. 4. The contract's value is substantial, positioning it as a key expenditure within NASA's support services. 5. Focus on safety and mission assurance highlights critical operational support for NASA's objectives. 6. The geographic location in Florida may indicate a concentration of NASA operations or facilities.
Value Assessment
Rating: good
Benchmarking this contract's value requires comparison to similar safety and mission assurance support services across federal agencies. The Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure allows for flexibility and incentivizes contractor performance, but it also necessitates robust oversight to ensure costs remain reasonable and aligned with awarded fees. Without specific per-unit cost data or detailed performance metrics, a definitive value assessment is challenging, but the competitive award process provides a positive signal.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: full-and-open
This contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources,' indicating that while the competition was broad, specific sources may have been excluded for defined reasons. The presence of 3 bidders suggests a moderate level of competition. A higher number of bidders typically leads to more competitive pricing and a wider range of technical solutions, but three bidders still offer a reasonable basis for price discovery and selection.
Taxpayer Impact: The competitive nature of this award, even with exclusions, likely resulted in a more favorable price for taxpayers compared to a sole-source or limited competition scenario.
Public Impact
Ensures the safety and reliability of NASA's missions and space exploration endeavors. Supports critical functions related to mission assurance, risk management, and systems engineering. Benefits NASA personnel and contractors by providing essential safety oversight. The services delivered are crucial for maintaining the integrity of complex space programs. Geographic impact is concentrated in Florida, where NASA facilities are located. Workforce implications include employment for specialized engineering and safety professionals.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- The CPAF contract type requires diligent monitoring to ensure award fees are justified by performance and do not inflate overall costs.
- Potential for cost overruns exists if performance metrics and fee structures are not tightly managed.
- The exclusion of sources, even if justified, warrants scrutiny to ensure it did not unduly limit competition.
Positive Signals
- Awarded through full and open competition, indicating a robust selection process.
- The focus on safety and mission assurance is critical for NASA's success and public trust.
- The contract duration suggests a stable and predictable need for these vital services.
Sector Analysis
The aerospace and defense sector, particularly within government contracting, heavily relies on specialized engineering and support services. NASA's spending in this area is crucial for maintaining its operational capabilities and advancing space exploration. This contract fits within the broader category of professional, scientific, and technical services, where competition can vary significantly based on the specificity of the requirements. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve looking at other large-scale engineering support contracts within NASA and other federal agencies.
Small Business Impact
This contract does not appear to have a small business set-aside component (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, the primary impact on small businesses would be through potential subcontracting opportunities. The prime contractor, Axient LLC, would determine the extent of small business participation in fulfilling the contract requirements. Without specific subcontracting plans or data, it's difficult to assess the direct impact on the small business ecosystem, though larger prime contracts often aim to include small business partners.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). As a Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract, NASA's contracting officers and technical monitors are responsible for evaluating the contractor's performance against established criteria and determining the appropriate award fee. Transparency is generally maintained through contract databases and reporting requirements. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of suspected fraud, waste, or abuse.
Related Government Programs
- NASA Engineering and Technical Support Services
- Aerospace Engineering Services
- Mission Support Services
- Government Safety and Assurance Contracts
- Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services
Risk Flags
- Potential for cost growth inherent in CPAF contracts.
- Need for rigorous oversight of performance metrics to ensure effective award fee allocation.
- Importance of monitoring allowable costs to prevent overruns.
- Ensuring that 'exclusion of sources' did not unduly limit competition.
Tags
nasa, safety-and-mission-assurance, engineering-services, cost-plus-award-fee, full-and-open-competition, axient-llc, florida, professional-scientific-and-technical-services, large-contract, multi-year
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $45.2 million to AXIENT LLC. SAFETY AND MISSION ASSURANCE SUPPORT SERVICES
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is AXIENT LLC.
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 $45.2 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2008-04-01. End: 2012-09-30.
What is Axient LLC's track record with NASA and other federal agencies for similar safety and mission assurance contracts?
Axient LLC, formerly known as Freedom, has a significant history of supporting NASA and other federal agencies with engineering, technical, and mission assurance services. Their past performance includes numerous contracts related to space systems engineering, safety, and test and evaluation. Analyzing their specific performance on prior NASA contracts, particularly those with similar scope and complexity, would provide insight into their reliability, technical expertise, and ability to manage costs effectively. A review of past performance evaluations and any documented issues or commendations would be crucial for a comprehensive assessment of their track record.
How does the awarded value of $45.17 million compare to similar safety and mission assurance contracts awarded by NASA or other agencies?
The $45.17 million contract value over its duration (approximately 4 years and 9 months) places it as a significant, but not exceptionally large, contract for specialized support services. To benchmark effectively, one would compare it against other NASA contracts for safety and mission assurance, systems engineering, or technical support, as well as similar contracts from agencies like the Department of Defense or the FAA. Factors such as the specific scope of work, required expertise, contract type (e.g., CPAF, FFP), and duration heavily influence contract values. Without direct comparisons of contracts with identical scopes, this figure represents a substantial investment in critical support functions.
What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to determine the award fee for Axient LLC under this contract, and how are they monitored?
Under a Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract, Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) are crucial for determining the award fee. While the specific KPIs for this contract are not detailed in the provided data, they typically align with the core objectives of safety and mission assurance. Examples could include metrics related to risk identification and mitigation, adherence to safety protocols, successful completion of testing and validation phases, quality of technical reports, and responsiveness to critical issues. NASA's contracting officer and technical team would continuously monitor Axient's performance against these pre-defined metrics. The award fee is then determined based on the degree to which Axient meets or exceeds these performance expectations, incentivizing high-quality service delivery.
What is the potential risk associated with the 'Cost Plus Award Fee' (CPAF) contract type for this safety and mission assurance support?
The primary risk associated with a CPAF contract type for safety and mission assurance support lies in the potential for cost growth if not managed diligently. While the 'award fee' component incentivizes performance, the 'cost plus' aspect means the government reimburses the contractor's allowable costs plus a fee that can be adjusted based on performance. If performance targets are set too low, or if oversight of allowable costs is insufficient, the total contract cost could exceed initial projections. For safety-critical functions, there's also a risk that the focus on achieving award fee targets might inadvertently lead to cutting corners if performance metrics are not comprehensive or rigorously enforced. Robust oversight and clear, objective performance criteria are essential to mitigate these risks.
How has NASA's spending on safety and mission assurance support services evolved over the past decade, and where does this contract fit in?
NASA's spending on safety and mission assurance support services has generally remained a consistent and critical component of its budget, reflecting the inherent risks and complexities of space exploration. While overall budget fluctuations occur, the necessity for rigorous safety oversight is non-negotiable. This $45.17 million contract represents a significant, multi-year investment in these essential functions. Analyzing historical spending trends would reveal whether NASA is increasing, decreasing, or maintaining its investment in such support services. This contract's value suggests a sustained commitment to ensuring mission success and personnel safety through dedicated, expert support.
What specific engineering disciplines or technical expertise are likely required for this 'Safety and Mission Assurance Support Services' contract?
This contract likely requires a broad spectrum of specialized engineering disciplines and technical expertise critical for ensuring the safety and success of NASA missions. This would typically include systems engineering, aerospace engineering, mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, materials science, reliability engineering, risk management, quality assurance, and safety engineering. Expertise in areas such as propulsion systems, spacecraft design, launch operations, software assurance, and human factors would also be highly valuable. The contractor must be capable of analyzing complex systems, identifying potential failure modes, developing mitigation strategies, and ensuring compliance with stringent safety standards throughout the lifecycle of NASA programs.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services › Engineering 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
Solicitation ID: NNK07205192R
Offers Received: 3
Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE (R)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Address: 2231 CRYSTAL DR STE 711, ARLINGTON, VA, 22202
Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Small Business, Subchapter S Corporation
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $82,039,194
Exercised Options: $49,075,526
Current Obligation: $45,165,709
Contract Characteristics
Multi-Year Contract: Yes
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED
Timeline
Start Date: 2008-04-01
Current End Date: 2012-09-30
Potential End Date: 2012-09-30 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2022-05-03
More Contracts from Axient LLC
- Counter - Rocket Artillery Mortar (cram) Technical, Logistics and Program Management Support Services — $359.9M (General Services Administration)
- Test, Exercise and Wargames Support Igf::ot::igf — $233.8M (Department of Defense)
- Development Corps STS3 — $197.9M (General Services Administration)
- ORS Rapid Response Branch. Communications Development Under the Rrsw Idiq Contract. the Contractor Shall Furnish ALL Labor, Supplies, Materials, Travel, Other Direct Costs, and Fees Necessary to Accomplish the Requirements Contained in the Attached Task Order — $191.5M (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
- Range Task Order — $177.3M (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 →