NASA's $874M engineering services contract with Amentum Technology, Inc. awarded in 2005, spanning nearly 9 years

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $874,005,781 ($874.0M)

Contractor: Amentum Technology, Inc.

Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Start Date: 2005-10-15

End Date: 2013-09-30

Contract Duration: 2,907 days

Daily Burn Rate: $300.7K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE

Sector: R&D

Official Description: ENGINEERING SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Place of Performance

Location: HUNTSVILLE, MADISON County, ALABAMA, 35812

State: Alabama Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $874.0 million to AMENTUM TECHNOLOGY, INC. for work described as: ENGINEERING SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY Key points: 1. Contract awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a robust market. 2. The contract type, Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF), incentivizes performance but requires careful oversight. 3. Amentum Technology, Inc. has a significant contract value, indicating substantial service delivery. 4. The long duration of the contract (nearly 9 years) suggests a sustained need for these engineering services. 5. The contract was awarded by NASA, a high-profile agency with complex technical requirements. 6. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 541330 points to specialized engineering services.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging without specific performance metrics and comparable contract data. The Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure means the final cost could vary based on performance, making a direct price comparison difficult. However, the total obligated amount of over $874 million over its nearly 9-year lifespan indicates a substantial investment in engineering services. The award fee component suggests NASA sought to incentivize high performance, which could lead to better value if achieved.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under 'full and open competition,' indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. This typically leads to a wider range of proposals and potentially more competitive pricing. The presence of two bidders suggests a degree of competition, though the exact number of proposals received and the evaluation process would provide a clearer picture of the competitive intensity.

Taxpayer Impact: A full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by fostering a competitive environment that can drive down costs and improve the quality of services received.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiary is NASA, which receives critical engineering and technology services essential for its missions. Services delivered likely encompass a broad range of engineering disciplines supporting space exploration, research, and development. The contract's location in Alabama (AL) suggests a significant impact on the regional workforce and economy in that state. The duration and value imply a substantial number of engineers, technicians, and support staff were employed or engaged through this contract.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Positive Signals

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Engineering Services sector (NAICS 541330), a critical component of the aerospace and defense industry. This sector is characterized by high technical expertise, significant R&D investment, and stringent quality requirements. Spending in this area is often driven by government needs for complex system design, development, and integration. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically be found within NASA's broader procurement portfolio and across other federal agencies requiring similar specialized engineering support.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications for small businesses stemming from a set-aside provision. However, as a large prime contract, Amentum Technology, Inc. may have had opportunities to subcontract portions of the work to small businesses, contributing to the small business ecosystem indirectly. The extent of such subcontracting would depend on Amentum's internal policies and NASA's subcontracting goals.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract would primarily reside with NASA's contracting officers and program managers. They are responsible for monitoring contractor performance against established criteria, approving costs, and determining award fees. Transparency is typically managed through contract reporting requirements and potential audits. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply to investigations of fraud, waste, or abuse related to the contract.

Related Government Programs

Risk Flags

Tags

engineering-services, nasa, alabama, definitive-contract, large-contract, full-and-open-competition, cost-plus-award-fee, research-and-development, aerospace, technology

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $874.0 million to AMENTUM TECHNOLOGY, INC.. ENGINEERING SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is AMENTUM TECHNOLOGY, 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 $874.0 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2005-10-15. End: 2013-09-30.

What specific engineering services were provided under this contract?

While the contract falls under NAICS code 541330 (Engineering Services), the specific services provided are not detailed in the provided data. However, given the awarding agency is NASA and the contract duration and value, it is highly probable that these services encompassed a wide array of engineering disciplines critical to space exploration and aeronautics. This could include systems engineering, design, analysis, testing, integration, and technical support for various NASA programs, potentially related to spacecraft, launch vehicles, scientific instruments, or ground support systems. The 'ENGINEERING SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY' description further suggests a broad scope.

How does the Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure compare to other contract types used by NASA for similar services?

Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contracts are common for complex, high-risk, or R&D-intensive projects where the final scope or cost is difficult to define upfront. Unlike fixed-price contracts, CPAF allows for cost reimbursement plus a fee that is tied to performance metrics. This differs from Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF), where the fee is fixed, or Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF), where both cost and fee targets are adjusted based on performance. NASA often uses CPAF when it wants to incentivize exceptional performance beyond basic requirements, offering a potential for higher contractor profit in exchange for achieving specific, often subjective, award criteria. This contrasts with firm-fixed-price contracts, which offer more cost certainty but less flexibility for scope changes.

What was Amentum Technology, Inc.'s track record prior to or during this contract award?

The provided data does not include information on Amentum Technology, Inc.'s specific track record prior to or during the award of this NASA contract. To assess their track record, one would need to examine their past performance evaluations on federal contracts, any past performance questionnaires (PPQs) submitted during the bidding process for this contract, and potentially their history with contract modifications, disputes, or terminations. A comprehensive review would involve searching federal procurement databases and performance rating systems to understand their reliability, quality of work, and adherence to contract terms on previous engagements.

What were the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to determine the award fee for this contract?

The specific Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) used to determine the award fee for this 'ENGINEERING SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY' contract are not detailed in the provided data. For a Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract, these KPIs are typically defined in the contract's Performance Work Statement (PWS) or Statement of Objectives (SOO). They often relate to factors such as technical performance, schedule adherence, cost control, quality of deliverables, innovation, and customer satisfaction. NASA would have established objective and subjective criteria against which Amentum's performance was measured to justify the award fee portion of their compensation.

How did the total obligated amount of $874 million compare to the initial estimated cost or ceiling of the contract?

The provided data shows the 'amount obligated' as $874,005,781.31. However, it does not specify the initial estimated cost or the contract's ceiling value. For a Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract, there is typically a target cost and a ceiling cost. The total amount obligated represents the funds actually committed by the government up to a certain point, which could be less than, equal to, or potentially approach the contract ceiling if all options were exercised and performance was strong. Without the initial estimates or ceiling, it's impossible to definitively compare the obligated amount to the planned budget.

What is the significance of the contract being awarded in Alabama (AL)?

The contract being awarded to a vendor located in or performing services in Alabama (AL) signifies a direct economic impact on that state. This includes job creation for engineers, scientists, technicians, and administrative staff within Alabama, as well as potential business for local suppliers and subcontractors. Government contracts, especially large ones like this, can be significant drivers of regional economic activity, contributing to the tax base and fostering specialized industry clusters. NASA's presence or reliance on contractors in specific geographic locations often reflects historical ties, existing infrastructure, or specialized workforce availability.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical ServicesArchitectural, Engineering, and Related ServicesEngineering Services

Product/Service Code: SUPPORT SVCS (PROF, ADMIN, MGMT)PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE (R)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Jacobs Engineering Group Inc

Address: 600 WILLIAM NORTHERN BLVD, TULLAHOMA, TN, 37388

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $962,500,000

Exercised Options: $962,500,000

Current Obligation: $874,005,781

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Timeline

Start Date: 2005-10-15

Current End Date: 2013-09-30

Potential End Date: 2013-09-30 00:00:00

Last Modified: 2022-08-03

More Contracts from Amentum Technology, Inc.

View all Amentum Technology, Inc. federal contracts →

Other National Aeronautics and Space Administration Contracts

View all National Aeronautics and Space Administration contracts →

Explore Related Government Spending